Category: Politics

Posted on

On to the Next Victim, or, Where’s Milo?

I started hearing of Milo Yiannopoulos a couple of years ago, probably on the Corner at National Review.  Even then, I kept getting him confused with Matt Yglesias (same initials, different ethnicity and politics).  The picture gradually came into focus: editor at Bretibart News; gay, outrageous, mean, flamboyant, opportunistic.

My first online encounter was this link: “WATCH: Milo visits Memories Pizza to apologize on behalf of normal gays.”  Remember Memories Pizza?  It was that mom-and-pop business in Somewhere, Indiana, that had to shut its doors after the co-proprietor innocently told a news reporter they wouldn’t want to cater a same-sex wedding. A hailstorm of disapproval almost forced the business to shut down entirely, but now they’re up and running and Milo paid them a visit.  He was endearing and sweet, and even though I had heard he was a dispenser of vile tweets, and the pizza show was probably a stunt, I felt warmer toward him—not to mention more aware of him.

He was already making speeches on college campuses at the invitation of the Young Republicans or Conservative Action League.  He didn’t call himself a conservative—or not always—but he delivered on conservative themes: pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-free market, even pro-Christian.  Search for “MILO: Catholics are right about everything” on YouTube and you’ll find a speech that, colorful language aside, sounds a bit like Frances Schaeffer.

Milo was fine as long as his sphere of influence didn’t extend much beyond Breitbart.  Then his horse—I mean Donald Trump–won the Triple Crown: viable candidacy, nomination, presidency.  Though he didn’t fit the Trump-supporter stereotype, Milo jumped that bandwagon early . . . and rode it right into the spotlight.  Once a gadfly, now a target.

Last December, his star ascending, he signed a book contract with Simon & Schuster worth a reported quarter-million.  Soon after, S&S authors started protesting, including over 150 children’s authors and illustrators who signed a letter.  Then came the noisy, fiery campus protests.  In one interview, Milo expressed amazement that someone as “silly and harmless” as himself could spark such rage.  Maybe he really meant it.  In any case the protests earned him enough street cred to be offered primetime exposure as keynote speaker at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference, not the sleep device).

But then there was that other interview, revealed earlier this week, in which he apparently expressed support for pedophilia.  He claimed the interview was deceptively edited; he’s never approved of sex with children; the conversation was about sex between older men and teenage boys (like in ancient Greece, you know?).  But one by one, the rugs jerked out from under him: book cancelled, speech cancelled, even Breitbart cancelled.  Where’s Milo?

I don’t mean where is he physically—he made a statement that included apologies and promises to stay in the spotlight.  It might be better to take a nice long vacation by the lake with a Bible, but what I actually mean is, where is he politically, philosophically, and spiritually?

David French wrote a thoughtful piece at National Review outlining three conservative responses to the smug, dominant left-wing media “machine”: You can try Reasoning with (like Ross Douthat on the NYTimes editorial page), or Replacing with (producing parallel institutions like Christian schools, Christian movies, right-wing talk radio and news services), or Raging against (matching the left outrage for outrage).  Yiannopoulos is a prime example of the rage angle, not that he’s angry.  Until this week he appeared to be having the time of his life.

Simon & Schuster are in business to make money, and it’s their business who they sign and who they drop.  CPAC shouldn’t have invited him in the first place—choosing a speaker because he outrages all the right people is like inviting a match to dynamite.  As for Breitbart, they stuck with him while he insulted Jews and women and African American actresses, but sex with kids is off-limits.  It’s good to know something is, but couldn’t someone have taken Milo aside earlier and put a grandfatherly word in his ear about standards and basic kindness?

Of course the left is showing selective outrage; links to Bill Maher and George Takei making similar statements–or jokes–have surfaced, but the scalp-takers are already looking for their next victim.  Milo is hardly innocent, and even his friends acknowledge his mean streak, spiking up in what he chose to post and tweet.  He gleefully collected enemies on both sides and clouded his true convictions with showmanship.  By now he’s buried under so many pile-ons we can’t see him, but there’s a man in there.  More to the point: there’s an immortal soul worth praying for.

Posted on

Shake It Up, Betsy!

Here’s the thing: Education is hard.  But it’s not complicated.

Great thinkers, most of whom have never actually tried to educate a turnip, have proposed all kinds of theoretical education reforms: see Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, etc.  From some of these theorists you get the idea that a child is a laboratory for experimentation. Actually, a child is a human being.  With a soul.  Human beings are personal, individual, quirky, susceptible, stubborn, challenging, frustrating, exciting, prone to failure, loaded with potential, and completely educable.

Education, since it’s all about human beings, is also a lot of things: It’s organic.  It’s individual.  It’s personal.  It’s unexpected.  It’s scattershot.  It’s hit-or-miss.  It’s discovery.  It’s sometimes thrilling.  It’s often boring.  It’s emotional and spiritual, not just intellectual.

It’s not a phase of life.  It is life.

The typical public school—that is, the facility, the schedule, the curriculum, and the administration—is none of those things in itself, but rather the structure that’s supposed to support those things.

I have nothing against public school.  As a children’s author I’ve visited a lot of excellent public schools full of happy children taught by dedicated and creative teachers (the kind of teachers who believe it’s worthwhile to set aside time for author visits).  But making education a bureaucratic matter, a policy matter, removes it farther and farther from the child and teacher.  Complication ensues.

Education is hard.  But it used to be simple.  Layers of complication, especially since the late 19th century, have tended to obscure the goal of education, which is raising up capable adults and responsible citizens.  “Complications” come from

  • The “Prussian model” of graded levels, central buildings, age-sorted groups;
  • University education departments, which became the natural home of untested theory;
  • Textbook publishing, quickly growing into big business, with the usual big-business profit-margin concerns—to which we can now add evaluation, consultation, and testing services;
  • State BOE’s, which can’t help becoming political, because government is by definition political;
  • Federal Reforms, such as Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, Every Student Succeeds, etc., all of which were supposed to produce classroom-ready 5-year-olds and college-ready high school graduates.  Instead they tangled teachers in layers of bureaucratic red tape and subjected students to days of standardized tests when they could have been learning something.

Is anyone really happy with the results?  Why do we want more complication?  Because that’s what we’re going to get with a standard-issue public-school-based Education Secretary.

Why do we want more complication?

Betsy DeVos is not standard issue.  The two common complaints about her are 1), she and her husband contributed a lot of money to Republicans, and 2) she has no experience with public schools.  As for #1, she is rich, and rich people are free to contribute money to political causes they care about: see Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.  Education is something DeVos cares passionately about, even though she has not pursued that interest through public school reform, but by developing viable alternatives.  The job description is Secretary of Education, not Secretary of Public Schools.  The public school is not the only avenue for teaching our kids but we sometimes act as though it were—as if all our resources should flow in that direction and if we could only—really—dedicate ourselves to improving public schools, they would get better.

The problem is, when education is a political matter all our resources go to bulk up the bureaucracy, putting more space between teachers and kids.

I don’t blame individual teachers for this state of affairs (though teachers’ unions may be another matter). And I don’t blame individual teachers for being nervous about Betsy DeVos.  But why, teachers, when you’re already stymied by standards and paperwork and evaluations and testing and top-heavy administration, would you want more of the same?

There is no standard model for education because there is no standard child.

 

It’s time to shake things up.

We can sanction and facilitate other options in addition to (not instead of) public school.  We could remove a few layers of complexity from the public schools, giving teachers more space and freedom to do to do their jobs.  We can make it possible for some children in very poor districts to go to a neighborhood academy that doesn’t have to jump through bureaucratic hoops   There is no standard model for education because there is no standard child.  Let a thousand options bloom, and if one doesn’t work, try something else.  The very best teaching moments are mutual, spontaneous, open-ended–like life, they go by pretty fast.  If you’re glued to your state-mandated lesson plan, you might miss them.

Shake it up.  It could even be fun:

If you disagree, please do one thing for me: watch a documentary called The Lottery.  Then let’s talk.

Posted on

Can We Talk? State-Supported Healthcare, Round One

Janie and Charlotte are best friends from college who have diverged spiritually and politically until we don’t agree about anything (almost).  But as friends, we occasionally get together to talk over some of the issues of our time.  Our first discussion was about religious liberty, beginning here.  Today we begin a debate about a very hot topic soon to get much hotter.

Introduction

One of President Obama’s most significant achievements was the Affordable Care Act, which expands medical coverage to several million previously-uninsured Americans.  But it’s also one of his most controversial acts, and soon to be much more so when the Republican congress, with the backing of a Republican president, tries to make good on their long-standing promise (or threat!) to “Repeal and Replace.”

Rather than try to parse out the pros and cons of every detail of the ACA and the proposed replacement (whenever we get to see it), we’re going to start with the basics:

Do we agree there is, or should be, a basic right to healthcare?

Janie: I’ll go first, and my answer to that question may surprise you.  From the heights of conservative ideology, I would say no.  Health care (actually it’s mostly sickness care, but I guess we’ll agree on the accepted shorthand) is what political theorists would call a “positive” right, meaning that if you don’t have it someone has to provide it for you.  America was founded mostly on “negative” rights, meaning government should not interfere with a citizen’s individual choices as long as the person isn’t breaking any laws or interfering with another citizen’s rights.

But as time goes on it’s not that simple.  First, advances in medical knowledge and technology mean that specific treatments can mean the difference between life and death.  This sharpens the distinction between income levels.  (In the past, the rich could afford medical care, but the state of medicine was such it was often healthier to go without!)

Second, a general breakdown in family and community cohesion means we’re not as available to care for each other, and the care we can offer is limited.  When our country was founded, towns and neighborhoods tended to be more tight-knit and basic needs for the sick could be supplied by people who knew them.  Most if not all hospitals were founded and maintained by churches or other charitable organizations.

Now, of course, the situation is very different.  Ideology bows to practicality, not to mention basic human decency.  So I would say, yes, there is justification for claiming a basic right to healthcare.  The question is how to provide it.

 

Charlotte: In America, citizen “rights” first were claimed in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

I love these words! I love that the DNA of our nation imprinted the ideal of human rights within our body politic from our very inception. But all of us who know American history, know our society has lagged behind our ideals over and over again.

Even as our Founders signed their names to this bold document, we know their wives and daughters did not (and would not) have those same rights and their slaves were not even considered to be fully human. Even though the Founders amended the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights (another brilliant document), we know it has taken years for the people of this nation to come to any kind of agreement about what some of those rights ought to look like in the lives of real people.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume slaves should have the right to freedom; America came to that conclusion slowly and violently.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume women should be free to vote and own property; American came to that conclusion slowly and reluctantly.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume Black citizens should have rights equal to White citizens; American came to that conclusion slowly and with much activism.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume all children should have free access to a basic education; America came to that conclusion slowly and awkwardly.

So I have to agree with you that health care was not one of the “positive rights” listed in the founding principles. But I will argue that affordable access to health care surely fits appropriately within the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” paradigm. I also argue that much of America is finally coming to the conclusion that basic health care ought to be part of the “general welfare” promoted by government – one more step in our evolutionary process of “forming a more perfect union.” I say it’s high time.

 

Janie: Well said!  And don’t look now, but I think we agree so far!

As I mentioned above, because of 1) medical advances that sharply delineate the difference between rich and poor and 2) a breakdown of family and community cohesion that leaves many people without care support, governments have “grown” an obligation to provide some sort of care.  The vast majority of Republicans, both citizens and politicians, agree with this too.

I’m glad you mentioned the preamble to the Declaration, because among those inalienable rights is liberty.  Opponents of the ACA oppose it not because they want to see sick people die but because it interferes with liberty.  For every one of the ACA’s 2100 pages (actually, I never heard what the final count was) the health care system and its patients (or victims, some would say) are saddled with another ten pages (more or  . . . more) of regulations that interfere with the physician’s liberty to practice and the patient’s liberty to choose.  And you remember the promise “If you like your plan you can keep it”—there was no way that could be true with the law as conceived.  It forces a large, diverse, dynamic population into a narrow channel and presumes to make vital decisions for them.

So that may be the real issue—not a right to life, which is a claim on the government we agree citizens have.  But what about the right to liberty?  That’s where the rub comes in.  Are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” listed in order of priority?  (Does “life” trump “liberty”?)

What do you think?  That’s my first question back to you.

And also, if I may, one more.  Health coverage did not used to be beyond the average American’s reach.  When I was 12, I became dangerously ill with myocarditis and spent a whole month in Dallas Children’s Hospital.  We were a low-income family: my mother was the only wage earner at the time and women didn’t make much, especially for general office work.  But she had Blue Cross through the Dallas Teachers Credit Union where she worked, and though I’m sure the family was pinched, we didn’t suffer.

That was in 1962.  Since then, costs have escalated far above the rate of inflation.  Why do you think that is?

 

Charlotte: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” You are wondering if these were listed by the Founders in order of priority? No, I don’t think so. You and I are both writers and what I see is poetic rhetoric. The Declaration of Independence gives us stirring language that lifts up our lofty ideals as a people. It’s also interesting that the Preamble says these three are just some of the “inalienable rights” endowed by the Creator. The Founders left the door open for America to continue to name and ensure basic rights for its citizens.

In this debate, in my opinion, it comes down to the difference between two visions: a capitalist individualist society or a connected community. Are we to give the market place unfettered freedom to operate our health care industry as a for-profit business? Or are we going to craft a society that requires the health care industry to put people over profit? Are insurance companies and corporations really “people” with rights that are more important than the rights of regular people to access basic health care?

I didn’t know this story about your myocarditis. Wow. Scary. I’m so grateful you were able to get the treatment you needed and have lived such a valuable productive life. I’m so glad we’ve been able to be friends all these years since.

Children’s Medical Center and Parkland Hospital are great examples of non-profit hospitals that put people over profit. I did my chaplaincy internship at Parkland and was very impressed with the work they do. These hospitals and their associated clinic systems serve anyone who has a need – no matter their financial situation. I don’t really understand all the funding and how that works but these are critically important services for Texas residents and countless people are still alive because of this access to affordable health care.

Janie: Absolutely!  And I’m glad I was living in 1962 rather than 50 years earlier when treatment might not have even existed.  The point is, insurance was affordable when we needed it back in 1962, even though we were a low-income family.  Things have gone off-track since then, for various reasons I’ll mention.

But here’s a little-known, or at least not much-discussed, problem: non-profit and rural hospitals are actually closing because of the ACA.  In Springfield, MO, Ozarks Community Hospital closed its Emergency and Surgical facility because the administration put too many requirements on it.  Not reasonable requirements—a friend who worked as an emergency nurse there said that as soon as OCH met one list of demands it was slapped with another.  OCH was built specifically to serve lower-income, lower-educated people of the Ozarks that larger hospitals didn’t want.  He believes this was a strong-arm tactic to force those patients into larger hospitals with more money.

In rural communities, at least 80 hospitals have closed since 2010, one of them not far from me.  As I understand it, the reason for rural closures is that these hospitals accepted a $155 billion cut in Medicare/ Medicaid payments with the expectation that all the new Obamacare enrollees would make up the difference.  That didn’t happen, and when the ACA didn’t meet its funding goals it shuffled thousands of Obamacare patients back on Medicaid, which pays hospitals far below their costs.  Unable to meet operating expenses, they simply closed.  Obviously this was an unintended consequence, but a very real one to thousands of rural residents living 100 miles or more from a hospital.

 

Charlotte: You claim the ACA is hindered by “…regulations that interfere with the physician’s liberty to practice and the patient’s liberty to choose.” I say this problem is much greater when insurance companies operate without proper regulation. “Regulations” in fact are “protections” for the people against the abuses of corporate interests. This problem in the ACA can be addressed and improved.

Janie: Maybe so.  But did you happen to catch the debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on CNN last Tuesday (Feb. 7)?  Cruz brought up an important point: the Big-player insurance companies like regulations because they can absorb them, even negotiate for exemptions if they need to, while the smaller companies are sunk.  As competition declines, costs go up.  And regulations are not always protections.

 

Charlotte: You say the ACA: “…forces a large, diverse, dynamic population into a narrow channel and presumes to make vital decisions for them.” What was happening before the ACA disallowed insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits and refusing pre-existing conditions? Who was making vital decisions then?

But I love your phrase; yes we are a “large, diverse, dynamic population…” One of America’s greatest strengths. I don’t see the problem the way you do; I see the ACA as forcing insurance companies to provide a wider kind of coverage that attempts to address some of this diversity.

Janie:  I don’t see diversity as a problem.  So I wonder why Obamacare prescribes a one-size-fits-all solution by requiring all insurance to cover a wide-ranging “essential benefits package” for everyone, whether they need it or not: maternity care for retirees, for instance.  I assume the purpose of that is to spread the burden equally, but I think there are other ways to do it besides making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick—especially if we bankrupt ourselves to the point where the funds won’t even be there when today’s young people need it.

 

Charlotte: You ask why health care costs have escalated. That is way out of my field of expertise but I suspect there are quite a few people in the system getting filthy rich from the suffering and ills of Americans. (Follow the money!) As I understand it, medical procedures and medications are far less expensive in many other countries, nations that have made the choice to count health care as a basic right and have figured out how to offer it to all their citizens.

Janie: I did a little research through several (not all conservative) sources and came up with these reasons.  There may be more:

  • The upside to R&D is the development of new drugs and treatments with the potential to relieve suffering for millions.  The downside is that it costs money (including obscene profits).
  • Hospital costs. Related to technology, but also to administrative costs.  Every hospital hires a battalion of staffers just to deal with insurance companies, another to deal with government paperwork.
  • Administrative costs to private physicians. Ditto, on a smaller scale.
  • More people living longer with chronic conditions.
  • Lifestyle choices. Ours is a self-indulgent society that (at least over the last 30 years or so) tends to slough off responsibility.  At the risk of sounding like I’m blaming the victim, here’s a story.  My friend who used to work at the nonprofit hospital kept seeing this same woman over and over.  Her issues were legion, and I’m sure some of them were unavoidable.  She was also terribly obese and smoked like a chimney.  When he asked why she wouldn’t take care of herself a little better, she told him, “Because I can come in here whenever I want and you people have to take care of me.”  I have no idea how widespread this attitude is, but I know it’s out there.

I’m just saying, we won’t know how to fix the problem unless we understand where the problem is.

 

Charlotte: Wouldn’t it be nice if America could stop waging war all over the globe and spend that money providing affordable health care, excellent public education and clean water to everyone?

You say: “…governments have ‘grown’ an obligation to provide some sort of care. The vast majority of Republicans, both citizens and politicians, agree with this too.  The question is how best to meet that obligation.” This statement intrigues me. Many of my progressive friends will doubt your claim that “the vast majority of Republicans” recognize some governmental obligation to provide some sort of care. How can you help us believe that?

Janie: Of course they doubt it.  Haven’t they always heard that Republicans only care about rich people?  Republicans are a mixed bag, just like Democrats, but let’s assume they aren’t totally stupid or suicidal.  Pulling the insurance coverage from under millions of people would be political suicide.  The hope is to replace the ACA with something more affordable and more efficient–and some Republicans may even have human reasons for doing so!

 

Charlotte: And when we talk about “how best to meet that obligation,” will you claim that private insurance companies and their corporate interests is a better approach than governmental insurance plans? I sure do like my Medicare insurance. It is efficient and affordable. Why can’t everyone buy in to this kind of program?

Janie: That’s a good question.  In the Cruz-Sanders debate, Bernie Sanders said repeatedly, “We’re the richest country on earth, yet our health-care costs are twice as high as any other developed nation.”  He seemed to think that statement was an argument, and elsewhere he implied (or explicitly stated) that the wealthiest Americans should make less money.  Even if the wealthiest Americans made less money, even if all their money were confiscated to provide healthcare for Americans, it would only supply the need for a limited time, and then what?  There are more options than “private insurance companies and their corporate interests.”  I’m hoping we can talk about that next.

In the meantime, I think we basically agree on the original question: Should there be a basic right to healthcare for Americans?  My ‘yes’ is a little more cautious and qualified than yours, but it’s still a Yes.

Posted on

About That Prayer Breakfast . . .

Andrew Klavan was there, and it warmed his formerly-secular-Jewish heart.  If you’re not familiar with Andrew, he’s a novelist and screenwriter whose memoir, The Great Good Thing: a Secular Jew Comes to Christ is on my reading list . . . er . . . as soon as it goes down to $2.99 for the Kindle version.  (I’ve been reading a lot of kids’ books for the World Magazine Children’s Book of the Year award, and my time for adult content has been limited, but that’s all over but the writing–yay!)

So, Andrew Klavan had an opportunity to attend the annual Prayer Breakfast, and he offers some context for the President’s odd prayer request for Arnold Schwartzenegger–basically, it was even odder than it sounded in the news bites.  But Andrew found the event to be very encouraging overall, not least because of Senate chaplain Barry Black’s rousing sermon.  And it was rousing–I took time to watch it on Sunday morning.  Was it gospel?  Not quite–he didn’t expound the sinner’s need for Jesus and offer an invitation. But boy, it was Jesus centered.

After some background about his boyhood in Baltimore (“I was sixteen before I ever shook hands with a white person”), he told about his own meeting with Jesus Christ in the pages of scripture, and how Peter 1:18-19 hit him between the eyes: . . . knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways of your fathers not with silver or gold or any perishable thing, but with the precious blood of Christ . . .  It suddenly struck him that

Even at ten I had sufficient analytical skills to know that the value of an object is based upon the price someone is willing to pay. And when it dawned on me, a little guy in the inner-city, that God sent what John 3 calls the only one of its kind, ‘His only begotten son,’ to die for me, no one was able to make me feel inferior again.

From there he went on to trace the appearance of Jesus throughout scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in as sweeping a birds-eye view as you’re likely to get anywhere, ending with a rousing doxology to the only Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  Klavan says the room was rocking and rolling by then (it was a big room, too) . . . until Mark Burdett (of Survivor and The Bible fame) got up to introduce President Trump, and the mood sort of went sideways.

It sounds like it was a great time overall, though, and Andrew had some other encouraging news to share, so click the link above if you have time.

And you really should spare some time for Pastor Black’s prayer-breakfast sermon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr9sCtJ61_8

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, part three

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last exciting installment, we went back and forth on some of the specific cases that brought this issue to everyone’s mind.  Charlotte ended with a question that gets to the heart of the issue–

charlotteCharlotte

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s two questions, and though they’re related, the first is theological and the second political/social.  The first takes us deeper into the reasons conservative Christians have for rejecting same-sex marriage (for example) while the second brings us back to the original issue of religious freedom.  The first requires we have certain inward convictions but the second requires only a modicum of good will and mutual respect.

So, in regard to your first question, I’m not aware that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is “only behavior”—though I guess “some” people will believe anything! I can only speak with authority about me, and my own thought is that of course homosexual behavior stems from the innate essence of certain humans beings, since people generally act out of what we might call their essences.  Out of the heart the mouth speaks, Jesus said, and the person acts.

But that’s exactly the problem.  My own “innate essence,” if unredeemed by the blood of Christ, is sin.  You may think I say this because I’m a Calvinist (total depravity, and all that), but I knew it long before I could put a label on it.  “There is none righteous; no not one,” and that includes me.  I’m not a homosexual, but I’m a casual liar and a subtle manipulator, and I have to keep a chain on these and other manifestations of me as I fight against them.

I understand that many readers will be shocked at the idea of homosexual practice in the same category as lying and manipulating (and a host of other sins).  Well, I wouldn’t if I had a choice, but I believe God puts them there, and so must I.  That doesn’t mean that LGBT people can’t be redeemed; of course they can.  But I do believe they need to accept that their sexual desires are part of the sin nature Christ longs to redeem, rather than a special gift that should be celebrated, any more than idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, intemperance, blasphemy and cheating should be celebrated.  “And such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11).  Such, in fact, were all of us, but we may be “washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

I come to these conclusions not because I hate gays or don’t know anyone who’s gay, or despise anyone who’s different, but because the Bible is not squishy about this.  I’ve read rationalizations to the contrary, and they strike me as just that: rationalization and wishful thinking.  I know Christians who struggle against same-sex attraction, and for them the fight is worth the prize.  “To live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

As for Christians who are also practicing gays and lesbians, they will answer to God, not me.  I can only tell them the truth to the best of my ability and knowledge.

Beyond that (touching on your second question), of course they should be allowed to live their lives in peace.  Shouldn’t I be allowed the same courtesy?  What about Baronelle Stutzman?  Ruth Neely?  Dr. Eric Walsh?

I could go on…

Charlotte

So let me get this straight: you do accept that homosexuality can be part of the innate essence/ being of some people but you believe when these people behave according to that nature (especially sexually) and “practice” homosexuality, then they are living in their “sin nature.”

Is that fair?

We agree that you and I are not trying to change each other’s minds in this conversation; rather we are trying to understand each other. So I’ll just respond with a part of my own journey from biblical fundamentalism into progressive Christianity. And no – this is not “justification and wishful thinking;” this is sound theology held by countless Christians.

I would say that indeed the Bible is “squishy” about homosexuality. The few texts people regularly quote can be interpreted in a variety of ways, especially given the completely different cultural context of ancient Israel and the Roman Empire. Applying expectations from the First Century to the very different context of the Twenty-first Century is not neat or simple. You don’t accept the Bible’s assumptions on women’s submission and slaves’ subservience, I will guess.

As Christians, for us the life of the Christ is the key to explain, amplify, demonstrate, interpret any of the other biblical texts. For me, Jesus’ example of welcoming and including those who were judged by the religious people of their own day gives me all the motivation I need to welcome wholeheartedly. Jesus’ example of chastising the religious leaders who drew bright lines and excluded some people from the fullness of God’s grace gives me pause as a religious leader myself. As I have said before, if God is my judge then I would rather be judged for including than judged for excluding.

When I stand with couples as their minister for their wedding vows, I always cite the love passage from First Corinthians 13: Love is patient, kind. It is not arrogant, rude, irritable or resentful. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Whenever any couple makes their commitment to live in this kind of love, then I boldly say God-Who-is-Love is honored. Whenever any couple keeps their vows “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health until death do us part…” then I say God-Who-is-Faithful is honored.

Janieprofile2

My position is also “sound theology held by countless Christians,” not mindless bigotry as is sometimes portrayed (not by you!).  It’s not based on a few texts, but on the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design from within scripture and outside of it.  Such as

  • The biological fact that the sexes were literally made for each other; confirmed by scripture (“This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh . . .”);
  • The creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply,” which could have an additional spiritual meaning but in the context clearly means making babies;
  • The lack of any favorable or remotely positive mention of homosexuality in scripture;
  • Jesus’ own definition of marriage as between a man and a woman;
  • God’s clear and strict limits on sexual behavior, which most heteros have a problem with.

Charlotte

My progressive Christian friends and my liberal secular friends see a lot of “mindless bigotry” on the Right. Unfortunately that is the public face of Christianity for a lot of non-Christians these days. One of the reasons I’m glad you and I are having this conversation (out of the several reasons I am glad) is that I would like more non-religious people to hear the rationale of a kind-hearted, thoughtful Christian like you. Most of them won’t agree with your theological argument (I don’t even agree with it) but your thought process and conclusions are anything but “mindless.” Your humility and compassion shine through.

Progressive Christian theology also considers “the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design…” So look how we begin with similar intent and end up in such different places! I keep saying First Amendment = Messy. This reminds me that our sincere differences also demonstrate that biblical interpretation is messy.

Janie

I agree that Christ is the key to interpreting all other biblical texts, so we need to pay close attention to what he said and did.  He invited all sinners to come to him, but drew one bright line, and that was himself: “No one comes to the Father but by me.”  He upheld the Law—“I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it”—lived a life of perfect obedience and died with all my sins on his head.  That’s how seriously God takes sin: someone has to pay for it.  One sinless man paid so that I don’t have to.  I still sin, but am obliged to struggle against my “innate essence,” my natural bent toward selfishness and dishonesty.  As a new creature in Christ I can’t cling to my old ways, and can’t encourage others to remain in what I see as sin.

The God-who-is-love demands that we love him first and best—not because he’s a self-centered tyrant but because he’s the source of everything good, and by loving him we find our best and truest selves.  If I were talking to an unbeliever who is gay, sexuality wouldn’t even be part of the conversation at first, because it’s not the real problem.  The real problem, as it is with all of us, is loving something more than God, and putting our own thoughts, desires, and ambitions in place of God, as it has been since the Fall.

A brief point about being judged: if, you say, God is your judge then you would rather be judged for including than for excluding.  Okay, but it seems to me this is not a matter of if but when.  God will judge everyone, including me and you.  If we are “in Christ,” i.e., standing under Christ’s imputed righteousness, we will be judged righteous for his sake, not for anything we did or didn’t do.

Charlotte

So we will agree to disagree on the theological and biblical arguments here. And I will say (as you suggested in our last conversation): “Okay Janie, times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  🙂

Janie

To which I would say, if I had the presence of mind for a quick comeback, “Yeah, well, in my book, eternity trumps time.”  🙂

Charlotte

Back to our conversation about religious freedom. The examples you offer remind us how very complex it is to apply Constitutional freedoms fairly. (First Amendment = Messy.) I respect each of the people who have found themselves mired in this current confusion as we figure out how to respect their rights at the same time we respect the rights of those who disagree. I am sorry for this challenging time. I believe we will get through this and be stronger and wiser and more compassionate on the other side.

Janie

It’s a real issue, and will only be solved by accepting each other in good faith. Regarding same-sex marriage, to put it bluntly: you won.  But some factions seem unwilling to rest until everybody agrees, or keeps their disagreement entirely under wraps.  When schools and colleges are threatened if they continue to teach their dissenting views (as recently happened in California), we are approaching something like thought control. Will you at least concede that Ted Cruz has a point, even if you don’t agree with his prescriptions?  Do you understand why I’m worried about this?

Charlotte

No, I don’t concede that Ted Cruz has a point. I still argue that he (and you) are focused on one side of the issue while the Courts are trying to balance all sides in as fair a way as possible in all this messiness. One of our commenters on one of our recent conversations noted that single individuals choosing to discriminate because of a religious belief is one thing while entire communities of people refusing services to another entire population of people is something else entirely. She said: “The fact is, the past is riddled with the consequences of communities having the right to do just this…” That’s why our Court system is so important – balancing the rights of some against the rights of others.

Throughout American history, our Courts have bent over backwards to try to accommodate the sincere religious perspective in the application of our civil laws: Jehovah’s Witness Americans refusing oaths or the pledge of allegiance; pro-life Americans opting out of abortion procedures; Muslim Americans and the length of their beards or the wearing of their hijabs; Native American understandings of the sacred (definitely a mixed bag of rulings here). Anyway, I could go on… Conscientiously objecting and opting out is a religious liberty that has been protected again and again by our Courts. However, the practice of discriminating against other people has been struck down repeatedly by those same Courts.

I wrote an open “Letter to My Christian Friends who are Anxious about Your Religious Liberty” some time ago. It’s my best argument for trying to see and respect all sides of this important issue. And yes – it would be nice if regular people could solve more of these problems face to face by giving each other space and “accepting each other in good faith.”

Janie

It’s not just “nice,” it’s vital for living together in a democracy when cultural seams begin to stretch apart.  The court system is overburdened as it is, not to mention prohibitively expensive and time-consuming; “taking it to the judge” is not an option for many people.  If you and your partner can get the flowers or the cake from another vendor, why not just do that?

To conclude, here’s a paragraph from Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion.  I took issue with some of his other statements in that opinion, but appreciate that he added this:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

Charlotte

Good quote. Justice Kennedy notes an important American reality here. Too many of my non-religious friends on the Left completely misunderstand this in their flippant application of “separation of church and state.” If the First Amendment means anything, it means we all have equal access to the public conversation.

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? – Religious Liberty, part two

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last conversation, we agreed that the First Amendment to the US Constitution establishes religious liberty, but then went back and forth on how to apply the multifaceted meaning of the Amendment: how to limit government from restricting people’s practice of religion (“free expression”) while disallowing government from establishing religion.

Charlotte argued that Christianity has been privileged in America since our country’s origins and that religious understandings have indeed been incorporated into our civil laws numerous times. Janie argued that Christianity has been a motivation for law, sometimes for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

Here is our continued conversation. Charlotte begins with Janie’s second question:

Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office?  Three examples: a) Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

charlotteYes indeed each of these cases is different. Very different. I’ll do my best.

a) It is no secret that I am no fan of Senator Cruz. I’ve written numerous letters to him disagreeing with the way he represents Christian faith in the public sphere. I think he is guilty of operating from his own small, black and white understanding of Christianity instead of representing and respecting the wide range of perspectives held by his rainbow constituency.

That said – Mr. Cruz enjoys the same constitutional freedom you and I do to express his beliefs in the public conversation. My effort is to rally voters who disagree with him to vote him out of office and to encourage citizens to keep him under a microscope so that his theocratic tendencies will be exposed and thwarted. This is one way I use my freedom.

Janie

Agreed, and I respect that.  I don’t believe the Senator’s tendencies are necessarily theocratic, but there’s a conversation for another time.

Charlotte

b) Kim Davis’ error is open and shut in my opinion. She was an elected official who took an oath to uphold the law. The moment she realized she could not in good conscience issue marriage licenses to same sex couples she should have stepped down.

Janie

I understand this view, and Evangelical Christians have actually disagreed on it: some Christians who profile2share Ms. Davis’s basic view of biblical sexuality argue that she was nonetheless duty-bound to perform her office.  If I remember correctly, though, there were other clerks in the same courthouse who could have issued a license without any conscience qualms.  The same-sex couple’s rights were not being infringed by one clerk’s refusal.

I have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation.  I would have felt duty-bound to refuse; to say something like, “I’m truly sorry [and I would be!], but because of my convictions about what the Bible says about marriage, I can’t in good conscience issue this license to you folks.  I apologize for the inconvenience, but Mrs. Jones over there would be happy to take care of you.”

Would I have the courage to do that, knowing it could cost me my job?  I’d like to think so.  But I would also like to think that, were I half of that same-sex couple, I could smile and say, “Okay, but times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  In other words, I wish we could bear with each other as fellow citizens, without continually resorting to the courts.

Charlotte

I have no doubt you would have handled this situation much more graciously, with much more integrity than Ms. Davis.

As I understand it, yes, there were other clerks in the office who would have been willing to issue marriage licenses, however Ms. Davis refused to let them. She forced her particular religious understanding upon the rest of the clerks and upon the citizens of her county. She put her religion above the law.

(J: Hmmm.  I’ll have to look into this.)

What is also sad to me about that whole Kim Davis rigmarole is the way her actions reflected so badly on each of us as Christians and on our shared Christian faith. Taking up the victim’s mantle, she missed an excellent opportunity to demonstrate Christian principles of humility and grace. Now, because of her example, countless secular people feel confirmed in their dislike and distrust of us religious people.

c) I had to look up Kelvin Cochran’s situation and I admit this one is messy. (Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.)

As we agreed in our first conversation, application of the First Amendment “is always the rub.” If I were the mayor of Atlanta, would I have fired such an exemplary city officer for his opinions published in a book designed for Bible study within a conservative Christian context? With only the information I have here, probably not. It looks to me like Atlanta’s move was more politically clumsy than unconstitutional.

One problem I see with the Cochran case is that, as an officer and core leader within the administration of the Mayor of Atlanta, he “serves at the pleasure…” This is a longstanding tradition that allows a mayor, governor, president to assemble a compatible team with shared perspectives and goals. If one of the mayor’s key leaders seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value of some of their citizens, then I can see the mayor’s concern. But then you and I don’t know the backstory (as is so often the case.)

Janie

True; no one ever knows the full backstory except those immediately involved.  I’m going to try to argue from a principle, not a personality; just let me address what I see as a mistaken assumption.  If you’re assuming Mr. Cochran “seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value” of gays and lesbians, I’m almost certain he would vehemently disagree.  I’ve read summaries of extracts from his book and his theme is basic Christian doctrine, not sexual behavior.  The offending chapter takes up six pages and three sentences mention homosexuality, among many sins that will separate men and women from God.  It’s not the prevailing view right now that homosexual practice is a sin.  I get that—but Mr. Cochran is arguing a theological perspective, not a social or political one.  It’s not a question of equal or unequal, but saved or unsaved.  If there were gay men on the squad I doubt he would have treated them differently, or even thought of them differently, except as sinners separated from God.  As are we all, without Christ.  I realize I’m putting thoughts in his head, but this view is pretty standard among the Evangelicals I know.

Charlotte

I see where you are coming from. After all, I too was raised with similar theological understandings. But as we have discussed before, I have changed my mind about sexuality. It’s been a long – but satisfying – journey for me. Let’s get back to that in another conversation.

Back to Mr. Cochran’s case:

Our nation established a court system in order to sort out this very kind of disagreement. The very fact that this case was filed in 2014 and is still in process supports my argument that the First Amendment is both profoundly brilliant and immensely complicated. Mr. Cochran has the freedom to argue his case and the City of Atlanta has the freedom to argue theirs. Then the Court decides. That’s how our system works.

Janie

I’m grateful for the freedom Mr. Cochran has to argue his case.  The system as originally established is admirable; problem is, over time the system has become slow, cumbersome and cranky, not to mention expensive.  It’s because we’re using the court to solve our ethical dilemmas for us, instead of working them out among ourselves.  It seems Mr. Cochran had two options when he was fired: 1) shut up and find another job, or 2) fight it, not so much to be reinstated (because that wouldn’t happen anytime soon) as to establish a precedent for future cases.

There are probably other Americans—who knows how many—in a similar situation whose cases never came to public attention because they didn’t have the wherewithal to fight.  It takes time, and money, and more time and money, and all the man wanted was to do his job.  And teach a men’s Sunday school class at church with the aid of a book he wrote, which should, it seems to me, find protection under the First Amendment. Let’s imagine he were an atheist writing a blog on his own time, whose opinions offended some members of the city council.  Should he be fired?  As long as those views didn’t interfere with his job, or his relationship with coworkers, of course not.

Charlotte

Some time ago, I wrote a blog about Pastors and Politics. I confess that if I argue for the right of progressive Christians such as Martin Luther King Jr. and William Barber to advocate for positions using the mantle of their religious beliefs, then I have to concede the right of conservative religious folks to advocate for their positions in the public conversation. Sometimes the Courts decide where the line is. Sometimes the American people decide at the ballot box. That’s how our system works. First Amendment = Messy.

Janie

And it will get messier.  I’m just wondering—is that the kind of society we really want?  Always at each other’s throats because of our religious beliefs?

Charlotte

I don’t know. Our society has been pretty messy from the get-go. It’s really quite remarkable that the Founders were able to agree enough to produce the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. That was a messy time indeed.

The Constitution of this infant nation was a brilliant creation, in part because it was written with room for this nation to grow. So now, all these years later, through adolescence and on to maturity, the people of the United States continue to deepen our understanding what it means to be “we the people … forming a more perfect union…” At the time these words were written, slaves were property and legally less than human, women could not vote or hold office and the Native Peoples were “savages” methodically driven from their ancient homes. America has been growing into its dream and attempting to live up to its ideals ever since our beginnings.

We humans have a long sad history of being at each other’s throats because of something or another. Besides the obvious human differences like color and gender, there are all these other cultural constructs like religion, nationality, ethnicity and class that give us excuse to keep each other at arm’s length instead of embracing our shared humanity. Our many differences don’t have to divide us; surely we can figure out how to tap into the strength of our diversity in order finally to become a “more perfect union.”

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s really a theological question, and will take a few paragraphs (though, I promise, as few as possible!).  I’ll get back to you on that . . . .

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, Part 1

Charlotte and I met as teenagers, when her father was hired to be the new Christian education director at our church.  We became close friends in college, married within a year of each other, and went our separate ways.  Separater and  and separater, in fact: from Texas-based fundamentalism to ordained Disciples of Christ minister and progressive blogger (Charlotte) and Reformed Presbyterian conservative author (me).  Through it all we stayed in touch, even though, politically at least, we agree on almost nothing.  Is it possible to talk respectfully from opposite ends of the religious and political spectrum?  We decided to try it: pick a topic, raise a question, and explain ourselves in a way the other can understand.  This isn’t a tug-of-war, where we try to pull each other over to our side by force of argument.  In our own modest way we’re trying to beam a ray of sunshine on this political season and make it a little less ugly and stupid.

Janie

Whenever a public controversy flares up, certain buzz words and catchphrases form like lint and attach profile2themselves to the debate.  After too many twirls through the drier (to stick with the metaphor), some of the meaning rubs off.  That’s why it’s a good idea when beginning a discussion to clarify just what we mean by the words we use.

Religious Liberty became a hot topic after the 2014 Obergefell decision, when the Supreme Court

  • struck down the right of states and their constituencies to define marriage (as the right saw it), or,
  • barred states from discriminating against same-sex couples (from the left).

Almost immediately, we started getting news about private business owners refusing to provide services for gay weddings, and the consequences thereof.  A number of state legislatures began debating religiously liberty/conscience laws to protect individuals in this situation.  Opponents began putting “religious liberty” in scare quotes, implying that these concerns were trivial or hypocritical.   I disagree that these concerns are either, and here’s my definition:

Religious Liberty refers to the freedom of an individual to practice his or her religion, not only within the confines of a church but also outside in day-to-day life, so long as it causes no obvious harm or places no undue burden on a fellow citizen.  Religious liberty is guaranteed by the “free exercise” clause of Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .  . .”

So, what’s your definition?  And of course, you may feel free to critique mine, so long as you give yours first!

Charlotte

charlotteBusted! “…putting ‘religious liberty’ in scare quotes…” is exactly what I did in our recent conversation when we were talking about how Ted Cruz approaches this issue. Mr. Cruz’s way of applying the Constitution to religious freedom does scare me. The way religious freedom legislation has mushroomed since Obergefell disturbs me deeply. This approach is a much smaller understanding of religious freedom in my mind. That’s why it’s in quotation marks. (Let’s talk more about that later.)

But otherwise – no – I do not mean to imply that “these concerns are trivial or hypocritical” as a rule. I believe wholeheartedly in religious liberty and I agree completely with your definition. No problem with our foundation here.

It’s the application of these constitutional guarantees that causes our dilemma.

As clear as the words of the First Amendment sound on the surface, the interpretation of what those words mean in any particular context and how those principles play out in our common life together is quite complex. Highly educated and well-intentioned lawmakers and judges have always had a variety of opinions about how to craft laws that appropriately apply these standards to our diverse American community.

I agree with your definition that the freedom to practice religion extends beyond the church doors. In the United States of America, all religious people enjoy the right to argue for our beliefs in the public conversation, to advocate for our positions, to write our letters and lobby our representatives, to vote…

(Interestingly the phrase “separation of church and state” is used by some of my liberal, secular friends to try to restrict the freedom of religious people to participate fully in the political process. That is a misunderstanding from the left that is just as troubling to me as the hints of theocracy I hear from the right.)

The problem comes when institutions of government attempt to enshrine particular religious understandings into civil law. Our nation has done this over and over again in our history and it always turns out badly. We religious people are right to expect equal protection under the law. But we do not have the right to expect legal privilege. The laws and policies of our government institutions must be fair and just for everyone.

Your turn…

Janie

Application is always the rub.  The devil is in the details, and that’s what worries both of us.  I have two questions:

  • You say that through history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law, and it always turns out badly. What particular religious understandings do you have in mind?  I don’t need a whole list, just two or three examples to illustrate what you mean.
  • Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office? Three examples: a) Ted  Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

Charlotte

Yes, I believe that throughout our history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law. I will argue that the institution of slavery, the limitation of rights and opportunities for women and the exclusion of gay people from the marriage contract are three really big examples.

I’m aware it’s a bit of a tricky argument because one can also argue that those circumstances grew from the soil of long held cultural assumptions, not religious practice. But since I believe all our various religions are cultural constructs, I cannot help but see religious underpinnings.

The anecdotal evidence I offer is the countless sermons that have been preached arguing that slavery was God’s will, that women should stay in the place God assigned them and that marriage is between a man and a woman because … you know … Adam and Eve. I offer the evidence that masters used the Bible to intimidate their slaves, that husbands have used the Bible to suppress their wives, that parents have used the Bible to ostracize their gay children. I offer the evidence that it has been church folks who have been some of the most proactive and reactive to lobby for these widely held religious understandings to be incorporated into local, state and federal laws. I could also mention prohibition, abortion and the Sunday Blue Laws that you and I were so familiar with growing up in Dallas.

“Law is always contingent,” my attorney husband reminds me. Rules and regulations come from a people’s time and place that are inevitably bound up with our particular understandings within our culture in any given era. (That’s why arguments from natural law stand on shaky ground.) The brilliance of the First Amendment is that it was written (intentionally, I believe) with both stability and elasticity. As our nation grows and matures, we can stand firmly in our proclaimed individual rights while, at the same time, evolve in ways that increasingly make room for the rights of others.

I need to take a break. You stretch me, Janie! I’ll let you respond to question #1 and we can tackle question #2 in our next discussion.

Janie

The stretching goes both ways.  Thanks for those examples.  Of course you are correct that religion (let’s just say the Bible) has been used to support American slave law and legislation limiting the rights of women.  But does that mean the Bible was the impetus for those laws?  I don’t believe so.  American slave law was driven by economics and false science (the “scientific fact” that blacks were inferior), not primarily religion.  The Bible was used to beat slaves into submission, but it also lifted them up, created a community (the black church) and shaped the heart of the abolitionist movement.  Women have likewise been subjected throughout all times and places, partly because of biology and because of the sinful tendency of the physically strong to oppress the weak.  The Bible affirms that men and women are equal in worth, and does not bar women from the marketplace or the public square.  I’ll admit that some passages in the Bible are problematic for women (some women, anyway!), but if scripture has been used as the central prop for legally limiting their rights, it’s been misused.

Same-sex marriage legislation is a bit more complicated.  Since most of the religious liberty cases that have popped up recently concern SSM and other issues of sexuality, we’ll definitely be taking it up later.

All this is to say that the record of religion in law is murky:  Christianity has been a motivation for law, for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

It’s interesting, though: the basic principle of non-discrimination is religious in origin.  It’s an outworking of the Judaeo-Christian doctrine that humanity is created in the image of God their Creator, and all men and women are of equal worth to him.  I doubt that the principle would even exist without that basic truth.  Can American law be uncoupled entirely from Christianity, or perfectly neutral toward it?  I’m not sure it’s possible, or even desirable.

Charlotte

Yes, you and I agree that the Bible and religion have been misused in these and many more social circumstances throughout history. Has religion been origin or justification for abuses of humans one against the other? Probably both-and.

I’ll work on my response to your question #2 and get back to you soon. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, my friend.

Charlotte Vaughan Coyle