Jonathan's blog

You might have heard about the group of evangelical ministers who issued a statement affirming that global warming is real and that something should be done about it (Evangelical Climate Initiative). A different group has recently signed a petition in support of a different cause (I noticed that at least one name is common between the two: Rick Warren). From an article in the NY Times titled "A Religious Push Against Gay Unions" by David D. Kirkpatrick:

About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage. Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. The signers include many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But both the organizers and gay rights groups said what was striking about the petition was the direct involvement by high-ranking Roman Catholic officials, including 16 bishops. Although the church has long opposed same-sex unions, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment banning such unions, it was evangelical Protestants who generally led the charge when the amendment was debated in 2004. The petition drive was organized in part by Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups. Aides to three Republican senators - Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and Sam Brownback of Kansas - were also involved, organizers said. The campaign comes as many in the Republican Party are increasingly worried that their core supporters may stay away from the polls this year because they are demoralized by the war in Iraq and other matters. Senate Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment in June, partly as a means of rallying conservatives. No one expects the measure to pass this year. But drives to amend state constitutions to ban same sex-marriage proved powerful incentives to turning out conservative voters in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004. At least two states with contested Senate races - Tennessee and Pennsylvania, where Mr. Santorum is seeking re-election against a Democrat who also opposes abortion rights - are debating constitutional bans on same-sex marriage this year. But Ohio and other pivotal states have already amended their constitutions, and at least one poll suggests that the public's negative response to the first same-sex marriages is cooling. A Pew Research poll in March found that 51 percent of the public opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

The text of the petition is here.

From an editorial of the same name by Jonathan Turley in USA Today:

With mid-term elections approaching, politicians are once again returning to one of their favorite themes: protecting the sanctity of marriage. When same-sex marriage is raised, citizens quickly forget about rampant corruption in Congress, towering budget deficits, or even the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, therefore, a constitutional amendment has been cited as a legislative priority by both President Bush and Republican leadership. The message is clear: What politics and religion have joined, let no one pull apart. Since 2004, almost two dozen states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and additional proposed amendments are planned for this year in Congress and various states. At the same time, gay rights advocates are pursuing their own legislative efforts and numerous court challenges to establish constitutional protections for the right of same-sex couples to marry. The real problem with same-sex marriage is not the qualifier but the noun. Religious advocates believe that marriage is a term loaded with moral and religious meaning. Gay advocates want to marry for much the same reason: as a social recognition of their equivalent moral standing. It might be the only political war fought over the proprietary use of a single noun. There is a simple solution: Stop using the word "marriage" in government licensing laws in favor of the more relevant term "civil union." In the USA, most states make it a crime to marry couples without government licenses, making even purely religious "marriages" a potential crime. If the role of government in maintaining "legitimate" forms of marriage doesn't make you uncomfortable, it should. In most other areas, the government steadfastly avoids this type of religious squabble, separating governmental functions from religious faiths. Marriage, however, has always been a conspicuous door placed in the wall of the separation between church and state. The government's distinction between legitimate and illegitimate marriages takes sides in a controversy that has raged since the formation of the first religions. Many religious groups, which include tens of thousands of Americans, believe in plural marriage or polygamy as a human right and divinely ordained. Other groups insist on endogamy (marriage within a defined group), while others insist on exogamy (marriage outside of a defined group). While many fundamentalists believe that marriage can only be a union of a man or a woman, other Christians reject this interpretation and embrace same-sex marriage. The reason that marriage licenses are so valued by advocates is precisely the reason it should be expunged from public documents: It conveys a religious or moral meaning. Conversely, the state interest in marriage concerns its legal meaning. It is the agreement itself, not its inherent religious meaning, that compels the registry of marriages by the government. Once married, the legal rights and obligations of the couple change in areas ranging from taxes to inheritance to personal injury to testimonial privileges. [The government should leave] the moral validity of a marriage to religious organizations. For state purposes, couples would simply sign a civil union agreement that confirms their legal obligations to each other and any progeny. Whether they are married in religious ceremonies would be left entirely to them and their faith. The government's interest and role would be confined to enforcing the civil contract, as it would any other civil agreement.

The Soulfource Equality Ride (a group of young adults calling for an end to discrimination against people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) recently visited the campus of Abilene Christian University. See some reflections on travistanley.net and kendallball.net. Also, Mike Cope recently published a blog post giving some of his thoughts on homosexuality. I think he did a pretty good job of representing the best approach: loving the sinner without condoning the sin. Read it here.

From an op-ed piece in the NY Times by Garry Wills, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant.". Some of his assertions are unconventional, but I suspect that some of them are closer to the truth than not:

THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program. This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state. Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart. But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it. The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes. To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills - that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test. Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?" That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts. The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer. It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.

Today I finished watching Oscar and Lucinda (1997,R) (Screen It! Review). From Wikipedia:

It tells the story of Oscar Hopkins, an English Anglican priest, and Lucinda Leplastrier, a young Australian heiress who buys a glass factory. They meet on the boat over to Australia, and discover that they both like to gamble. Lucinda bets Oscar that he cannot transport a glass church into the outback in one piece. This bet changes both their lives forever.

I really enjoyed this one. I give it 4 out of 5.