And, as I see it, the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious issue at all but more one of traditionalism vs. progressivism. The way I see it is that many people, regardless of their religious views, are very afraid of change
That too.
But I think it's also because gay people getting married basically equals them openly declaring, "I'm committing myself to this person, this same-sex person, for life. My homosexuality is not 'just a phase' or something I could overcome with enough therapy or Bible study; I'll be living with a same-sex spouse for life. This is it." And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
That, and the fear of change you mentioned. It's really a fear issue. But you know, if humans had never overcome their fear of change, we'd still sit huddled in caves. Without fire, even. A society that can't deal with changes dooms itself in the long run. Change is a fact of life, like it or not.
I guess that's why the "fundies" (to use that ugly word) are so opposed to teaching about evolution. Because that was the point Darwin was making - that species have to adapt in order to survive. They can either adapt and evolve, or go extinct. No other options. That's, of course, not something that people whose attitude consists of fearing change and clinging to the status quo want to hear.
Honestly, I think that if a big deal hadn't been made about it to force the issue, then most likely equal rights would have been granted to gay couples eventually.
Were equal rights granted to black people "eventually" because Martin Luther King and all the people of the Civil Rights Movement kept their mouths shut and didn't make a big deal about having to sit at the back of the bus? Do women now have the right to vote and, heck, the right to even learn to read and hold their own property and all that (you know, the things that allow you to sit and write into your Livejournal on your own computer) because everyone just shut up about it?
Sorry, but I don't believe that the way for [insert minority group here] to gain equal rights is to just STFU and wait for the system to change by itself. Show me one example in history where that has worked. That's the kind of approach that hasn't worked for battered wives all over the world - "If I won't talk back and be more nice and quiet, he'll change." Doesn't work that way. Heck, even Gandhi practiced passive resistance; he didn't just shut up and not rock the boat.
Even from the religious POV - I don't think it's God's will that we live in bigotry and fear of change. Jesus didn't come to bring a spirit of fear; He came to bring a spirit of love and free us from fear. I refuse to believe that a loving, all-merciful God has nothing better to do than condemn people for whom they love.
Ooooh, let's see how far I get before I run into the word limit... ;)
And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
But, then again, with the prevalence and ease of procuring a divorce -- at least in American society -- the original intention and meaning of marriage has largely become moot. One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages... Seems to me that the true fear is, as I said, a fear of changing long-standing tradition rather than any real fear of demeaning the institution of marriage.
As I said, society in general tends to favor the status quo, whatever the issue, and the concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution is one that is as old as civilization. As I said, as far as I'm aware, throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage, and that's a lot of inertia to overcome. Religious beliefs do play a part in the issue for some people, of course, and they have a tendency to be the loudest and most righteously outraged about it, yes. But on the other side of the coin, I've met plenty of atheists and people with no religious convictions whatsoever who are opposed to homosexuality in general and certainly to gay marriage. My ex (until I "corrupted" him) and his entire family were just some of those folks. They were as homophobic and as atheistic as can be. And even people of other, non-theistic religious convictions can be opposed to homosexuality. "Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true. And I knew that and would have made the exact same argument even before I became a Christian almost two years ago. So, my point in what I was originally saying was that the whole gay marriage thing is not just an issue of the "fundies" trying to impose their religious and moral convictions on other people. It goes far deeper than that because this is an issue of changing thousands of years of human tradition. And in my opinion, that's not going to happen easily, if it happens at all. Many, MANY people are opposed to it for many different reasons, and I'm simply tired of hearing that it's just Christian homophobes forcing their beliefs on other people. Because that simply isn't true.
That, and the fear of change you mentioned. It's really a fear issue. But you know, if humans had never overcome their fear of change, we'd still sit huddled in caves.
Of course. My point wasn't that we shouldn't overcome fears; my point was that the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious one, but one of fear that crosses religious boundaries. It's a very different point. But then, my points are always misinterpreted, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. ;)
But on that note, I will say that not all fears necessarily need to be overcome, and that not all societal changes that the human mind can contemplate have to be made. There were some changes made in some societies that, in retrospect, weren't very good/beneficial ideas at all, you know.
One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages...
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology. If they are sexist, they'll lap up the whole "wife should be in submission" stuff. But they probably would've been homophobic/sexist/kumquat even without the religion; the religion just gave them an extra justification. Though IME, people who believe to have a religious justification tend to be particularly uncompromising about their convictions, because then there's that whole "I have to do that and believe that to please God" and "if I don't do that, my whole family will go to hell" hovering over their heads. If God is important to someone, that's a tough thing to go against, I can understand as much.
So yes, it's "not just the Christian fundies". I have no gripe with Christianity (quite to the contrary); I do have a gripe with fundamentalism of any flavour, whether it's Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, Hare Krishna fundamentalism, or what have you. My opinion towards that can be summed up with a quote from the webcomic Unicorn Jelly:
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change!"
The problem with fundamentalism is taking a sacred scripture or a sacred teaching and putting it on a pedestal as something that must absolutely never be questioned under any circumstances.
For me, if I have to choose between a sacred book and common sense or between a sacred book and compassion, I'll choose common sense and compassion every time, thank you very much.
Fundamentalism, as I understand it (you may have a different definition of the word, esp. when you call yourself "one of those fundies"), is what I call "100% religion" or "all-or-nothing religion". It's like, "If the teachings of our religion are true, they must be 100% true, no exceptions." Like the problem with the Hare Krishnas (at least it's a problem IMO) is that they have the stance that what Prabhupada (their founder) said is the Absolute Truth and must not be questioned. All of what he said. Whether it's "we never went to the moon" or "women are less intelligent and should be treated like children", or whatever. Myself, I'm asking, why does it have to be all or nothing? Why shouldn't it be possible that what Prabhupada said about (for instance) the moon isn't true and love of Krishna (God) is still the goal of life? Likewise, why shouldn't it be possible that the Earth is older than 6000 years and homosexual love is just as blessed and beautiful as heterosexual love, and God is still God and Christ is still Lord? Why does it have to be "all is true", as if the only alternative was "nothing is true"? Why should the principle "take only what's helpful" be applicable to everything except religion?
The Bible or the [insert sacred scripture] may come from God, but it was still written down by people who were human, and were the product of their culture. What worked within the context of their culture must not necessarily work for us.
Like with Prabhupada, I have little doubt that he was a man who was deeply devoted to God, and sincerely wanted to teach love of God, but isn't it possible that he was still, on some level, a product of his culture (i.e. early 20th century Bengali culture)? But you see, in the Hare Krishna movement, you're not supposed to say (or even think) that.
I'm very, very skeptical of any system that forbids people to question things and exercise their common sense and think for themselves. If something's really Truth (capital t), it will stand even after questioning, don't you think?
my point was that the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious one, but one of fear that crosses religious boundaries. It's a very different point.
Okay, okay, I get your point.
But on that note, I will say that not all fears necessarily need to be overcome, and that not all societal changes that the human mind can contemplate have to be made.
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
Strange things happen in shamanistic societies, yes. :) And even so, it wasn't the general populace that was allowed to do this kind of thing. The idea of equalizing homosexual unions with heterosexual marriages within the general population is, as far as know, something totally new and different in human society. Even in certain city-states in ancient Greece -- where it was felt that you married a woman in order to have legitimate children to inherit your possessions and carry on the family name, but for real, meaningful love, you had a male lover -- guys weren't allowed to marry their male lover. They could parade them all over the place and no one thought oddly of it, but you simply did not marry your male lover. So even in that most accepting-of-homosexuality atmosphere, gay marriage still wasn't allowed. So, like I said, something new. And, as I said, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm not sure that I'll agree that whatever happens will be a good idea, but it'll still be interesting to watch it unfold.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
So the Amish and the Hare Krishnas have something in common, then? ...Iiiiiinteresting. :)
Anyway, while I personally (and obviously) know nothing of Hare Krishnas (other than to avoid them at all costs ;) ) and their philosophies, I will say that this is a good example of what I'm saying, indeed. The issue of anti-homosexuality/anti-gay-marriage is not simply one of certain vocal Christians being loudly averse to it. Many different religions -- and people of no religion at all -- are averse to it as well. I wish more people would open up their eyes (and minds) and acknowledge this. Instead, they seem to reflexively blame their favorite scapegoats, of course. :\
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology.
Oh yes, indeed. In fact, I think preconceived notions and beliefs draw people to certain religions in general, not just to certain "tenets" of that religion. For instance, if one believes in or is attracted by the concept of reincarnation, one will naturally seek out information on religions that advocate or embrace that concept. In my own case, I originally got into Buddhism because I had reason to believe that reincarnation was true.
But yes, once into a certain religion/belief structure, certain tenets will be attractive to certain people, based upon their pre-existing biases and prejudices. I don't think that's necessarily a cynical view; it's simply an accurate assessment of human nature.
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change!"
"Things" change, yes. But you know what? God does not change. And maybe that's the problem that many people have with Him. Those people see having principles that don't change with time and popular opinion and following those principles to the letter as a bad thing. I happen to see it as a good thing, myself.
Even in certain city-states in ancient Greece -- where it was felt that you married a woman in order to have legitimate children to inherit your possessions and carry on the family name, but for real, meaningful love, you had a male lover -- guys weren't allowed to marry their male lover. They could parade them all over the place and no one thought oddly of it, but you simply did not marry your male lover.
That's because historically, for a long time, marriage generally wasn't a matter of "real, meaningful love"; it was a matter of ownership and "perpetuing the line". A wife was a piece of property, just like cattle, and her main purpose was to produce children. So for a man in those days, it would've seemed absurd and insulting to call his male beloved (who of course couldn't bear children, and whom he didn't consider mere property) his "wife".
The example is also interesting because it shows that sexism and homophobia - even though they often go hand in hand - can exist separately from each other. The society of Ancient Greece was both very non-homophobic and very sexist - married women weren't even allowed to leave the house. Just as a side note.
Fundamentalism, as I understand it (you may have a different definition of the word, esp. when you call yourself "one of those fundies"), is what I call "100% religion" or "all-or-nothing religion". It's like, "If the teachings of our religion are true, they must be 100% true, no exceptions."
I went to Dictionary.com and when I typed in "fundamentalist", this is what it spit back at me:
1) A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2) often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Of course, the latter applies only to Christian fundamentalists. And I suppose that the definition of the word can be different for different people. But for me, the first part of Definition 1 is the most important part: A return to fundamental (meaning, foundational) principles. For me (and so it should be for any Christian) the foundation of Christianity is the Bible, all of which (including the "inconsistencies" that some folks often triumphantly point out) I believe to be the Word of God, yes. As such, it is what I follow for guidance. Or at least, it is what I should follow; I am far from perfect and there are many things that I do not understand and that I question every day in God's word.
See, all my life, my favorite word has been "why"; it is no different now that I am a "fundamentalist". In fact, it's probably even worse. And I have actually been commended for that characteristic by one very "fundamentalist" group (Answers in Genesis) when I wrote to them asking questions...which reminds my that I have still more questions that I need to ask of them, but... Anyway, the person answering my questions compared me to a Berean ("Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11, emphasis mine); he didn't chastise me for questioning their beliefs and practices. In fact, in my experience, most "fundies" want you to ask questions of them so that they can attempt to give you the answers that you seek. Personally, I respect people who ask intelligent questions. As a favorite Christian song of mine goes: "You can't find the answers/'Til you learn to question/You won't appear stupid/Just ask for direction."
So, as I see it, being a fundamentalist doesn't mean that you unquestioningly believe everything you're told to believe and that you put sacred texts on some sort of untouchable, unquestionable pedestal, but rather that you read, you study, and you question, sometimes questioning God directly. He doesn't care if you question. Some people might care and become offended if you question them and their beliefs, but God doesn't mind at all. He knows the truth and He knows that the only way that some humans (me, for one) will see that truth is by fighting, questioning, arguing, yelling, kicking, screaming, biting, and scratching it until they can raise no more objections to it and all of their questions have been answered to their satisfaction. That's just the way it is for me. And, like I said, I have not been censured for it. While all of my questions have not yet been answered and likely never will be fully answered until I get to heaven, I now have enough faith to believe anyway. And that is an entirely new thing for me, a person who used to be (and who was trained to be) the ultimate skeptic. So I have not been brainwashed or coerced, I have not become stupid, and I do not mind when people ask me questions about my beliefs. I may not have all the answers to them right when they ask them, but I will find them, if I can.
So...uh, did I answer the question? :) Well, there's my thoughts on the issue, anyway. :)
Why should the principle "take only what's helpful" be applicable to everything except religion?
Because that sounds suspiciously like a New Age-y, "all paths lead to God" philosophy, which is entirely false.
Oh, believe me, I avidly and enthusiastically went down that road at one point. Not for nothing did I once consider Madonna's "Sky Fits Heaven" to be a very "me" song. I once thought that I could pick and choose from amongst the world's great philosophies and religions and that everything would still be OK, that I'd be a "good person" and go to heaven and all that New Age crud. But, it isn't true. In some ways, I wish that it was true -- it would be so much easier, dangit! -- but it is not. Like as not, we must take the narrow road, as Jesus said, if we wish to follow Him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Fair? Perhaps not in our modern minds, no. But it is simply the way it is.
The Bible or the [insert sacred scripture] may come from God, but it was still written down by people who were human, and were the product of their culture. What worked within the context of their culture must not necessarily work for us.
But how do we decide, then? How do we go about picking and choosing from amongst the words and commandments of the Bible? How do we decide what is applicable and what is no longer applicable in our culture? Do we just follow the things we like, that are inoffensive, and that are still politically correct while conveniently ignoring all those things that make us uncomfortable in our "freer" and more "advanced" society? Or would it be better to just put our own will into submission under God's and just do and believe all of what the book says and not worry what other people think about it?
Mind you, I don't have the answers to those questions, and I'm not sure that anyone else does. They are questions that I often ask, but I'm just muddling through like everyone else. For now, my thinking is that if I feel strongly compelled to follow a certain point in the Bible, I will. For instance, I very rarely swear anymore, which is a new thing for a born-and-bred guttermouth like me. I don't even really say, "Oh my God!" anymore. I felt compelled to make that change in my life. But I don't, for instance, wear a head covering and refrain from cutting my hair, and I don't feel remotely compelled to do those things. Now, as time goes on, I might feel strongly about those issues or other issues, and I'll certainly be open to those things if that happens. Otherwise, I just try to focus on those issues which are important to me, personally, and that I struggle with. The rest either will or will not come in time. I'm content to wait and see.
I'm very, very skeptical of any system that forbids people to question things and exercise their common sense and think for themselves. If something's really Truth (capital t), it will stand even after questioning, don't you think?
Indeed, I do. Any belief system that cannot withstand a bit of logical questioning cannot be true. Which, as I said, is why I question all the time. So far, I have not been able to un-convince myself, even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and a big fan of critical thinking. If someone presents an argument, my first impulse is to pick holes in it. That's what happens here on LiveJournal, even. :) Given that, this whole "fundie" thing must have some merit. Because, believe me, I fought tooth and nail against it, bombarded it with all kinds of questions...but ultimately, as I said, found Truth in it. Of course not all folks who call themselves "fundamentalist" are like me (Yes, I'm looking at you, Jerry Falwell), and it's for this reason that I don't really like or often use such labels. But, unfortunately, they tend to be convenient. :)
I once thought that I could pick and choose from amongst the world's great philosophies and religions and that everything would still be OK, that I'd be a "good person" and go to heaven and all that New Age crud. But, it isn't true. In some ways, I wish that it was true -- it would be so much easier, dangit! -- but it is not. Like as not, we must take the narrow road, as Jesus said, if we wish to follow Him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Fair? Perhaps not in our modern minds, no. But it is simply the way it is.
That's your belief. I'll still have mine, and I hope we can still respect each other as people regardless.
Or would it be better to just put our own will into submission under God's and just do and believe all of what the book says and not worry what other people think about it?
All of what the book says? Including bits like the "if a man rapes an unmarried girl, his punishment should be that he has to marry her"? Would you want your daughter to marry her rapist? What about the "parents should stone a rebellious son" bit?
But you know, a lot of what you said about putting your own will under submission, etc. sound a lot like what you could've heard from my mouth, had you met me a few years earlier. See, the reason I now feel about fundamentalism the way I do is that I was into a more "fundamentalist" flavour of religion for some time myself, and found out through experience that it's not for me. And believe me, I'm questioning my new stance, too.
Which, as I said, is why I question all the time.
This is where we're alike again, differing beliefs nonewithstanding. :) And you know, if you've found your "home" and your Truth and your happiness in "fundie" Christianity, I sincerly wish you all the best for your walk with the Lord. I'll be over here in my corner as a critically questioning but (so I hope) sincerly God-seeking "New Age-y" person; and (like I said) I hope we can both respect each other, different beliefs and all. :)
I guess that's why the "fundies" (to use that ugly word) are so opposed to teaching about evolution. Because that was the point Darwin was making - that species have to adapt in order to survive. They can either adapt and evolve, or go extinct. No other options. That's, of course, not something that people whose attitude consists of fearing change and clinging to the status quo want to hear.
Not that I want to open this particular can of worms...but I will point out that the current breed of creationists vehemently opposes the idea of the fixity of species, the concept that species don't adapt and, indeed, evolve. Even more startlingly for the grossly uninformed, most creationists do not at all deny that individual species do, indeed, evolve from other species. (Although it's true that they don't tend to use the word "evolve" itself, probably because it has become a loaded word from which they want to separate themselves. They prefer the word "adapt", particularly that species "adapt within their kind"). So you see, even these most fundamental of "fundies" don't oppose the idea of change at all, even evolutionary ones. Amazing, isn't it? :)
All sarcasm aside, my point is: Everyone fears change, not just one particular spiritual persuasion.
Were equal rights granted to black people "eventually" because Martin Luther King and all the people of the Civil Rights Movement kept their mouths shut and didn't make a big deal about having to sit at the back of the bus?
Again, my point was misunderstood. As I said in my original post, before the brouhaha, America was already moving in the direction of gay unions being granted equal legal rights, if not allowing them to be called "marriages". Two states already recognized "civil unions" between same-sex partners as equal, legally, to a heterosexual marriage. The gay couple who adopted my daughter, for instance, lives in one of them (Vermont), and their union is recognized fully as legal as any heterosexual marriage. And I have no doubt that other states would have moved in the same direction, as well. And, in fact, other states were moving, quietly and without making a huge fuss, in that direction.
But, once a big stink was made, that progress was largely halted, and the whole thing has now become a Big Political Issue(TM), on a par with, say, abortion. I lamented the fact that the progress that was being made was halted by people (on both sides of the issue) righteously waving banners.
Now, in cases like the civil rights movement, a revolution needed to happen because Southern society wasn't at the time moving in the direction that it needed to move. With gay rights -- probably because of the civil rights movement that had already happened -- I really don't think a revolution was necessary, for the reasons that I stated. Now that a fuss has been made, though...Well, I fear that the issue will be in deadlock for a good long time to come, just like any other Big Political Issue(TM), when it didn't have to be that way. Great job, guys. :\
I refuse to believe that a loving, all-merciful God has nothing better to do than condemn people for whom they love.
On that note, God doesn't and never did "condemn" people for homosexual behavior or for any other sin. Some folks out there need to read Leviticus, methinks. (Yes, it's the single most boring book in the Bible, but...It's good for you! :) ) Rather, it's people who choose to condemn; they choose to (unjustly) condemn other people and they choose to condemn themselves. God has nothing to do with it, really, other than the fact that He laid down the rules. People simply have to choose to follow those rules or not. Simple as that. That's the wonderful thing about free will, you see. :) I think that's a crucial issue that many people seem to have forgotten...
but I will point out that the current breed of creationists vehemently opposes the idea of the fixity of species, the concept that species don't adapt and, indeed, evolve.
That too.
But I think it's also because gay people getting married basically equals them openly declaring, "I'm committing myself to this person, this same-sex person, for life. My homosexuality is not 'just a phase' or something I could overcome with enough therapy or Bible study; I'll be living with a same-sex spouse for life. This is it." And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
That, and the fear of change you mentioned. It's really a fear issue. But you know, if humans had never overcome their fear of change, we'd still sit huddled in caves. Without fire, even. A society that can't deal with changes dooms itself in the long run. Change is a fact of life, like it or not.
I guess that's why the "fundies" (to use that ugly word) are so opposed to teaching about evolution. Because that was the point Darwin was making - that species have to adapt in order to survive. They can either adapt and evolve, or go extinct. No other options. That's, of course, not something that people whose attitude consists of fearing change and clinging to the status quo want to hear.
Honestly, I think that if a big deal hadn't been made about it to force the issue, then most likely equal rights would have been granted to gay couples eventually.
Were equal rights granted to black people "eventually" because Martin Luther King and all the people of the Civil Rights Movement kept their mouths shut and didn't make a big deal about having to sit at the back of the bus? Do women now have the right to vote and, heck, the right to even learn to read and hold their own property and all that (you know, the things that allow you to sit and write into your Livejournal on your own computer) because everyone just shut up about it?
Sorry, but I don't believe that the way for [insert minority group here] to gain equal rights is to just STFU and wait for the system to change by itself. Show me one example in history where that has worked. That's the kind of approach that hasn't worked for battered wives all over the world - "If I won't talk back and be more nice and quiet, he'll change." Doesn't work that way. Heck, even Gandhi practiced passive resistance; he didn't just shut up and not rock the boat.
Even from the religious POV - I don't think it's God's will that we live in bigotry and fear of change. Jesus didn't come to bring a spirit of fear; He came to bring a spirit of love and free us from fear. I refuse to believe that a loving, all-merciful God has nothing better to do than condemn people for whom they love.
Reply
And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
But, then again, with the prevalence and ease of procuring a divorce -- at least in American society -- the original intention and meaning of marriage has largely become moot. One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages... Seems to me that the true fear is, as I said, a fear of changing long-standing tradition rather than any real fear of demeaning the institution of marriage.
As I said, society in general tends to favor the status quo, whatever the issue, and the concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution is one that is as old as civilization. As I said, as far as I'm aware, throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage, and that's a lot of inertia to overcome. Religious beliefs do play a part in the issue for some people, of course, and they have a tendency to be the loudest and most righteously outraged about it, yes. But on the other side of the coin, I've met plenty of atheists and people with no religious convictions whatsoever who are opposed to homosexuality in general and certainly to gay marriage. My ex (until I "corrupted" him) and his entire family were just some of those folks. They were as homophobic and as atheistic as can be. And even people of other, non-theistic religious convictions can be opposed to homosexuality. "Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true. And I knew that and would have made the exact same argument even before I became a Christian almost two years ago. So, my point in what I was originally saying was that the whole gay marriage thing is not just an issue of the "fundies" trying to impose their religious and moral convictions on other people. It goes far deeper than that because this is an issue of changing thousands of years of human tradition. And in my opinion, that's not going to happen easily, if it happens at all. Many, MANY people are opposed to it for many different reasons, and I'm simply tired of hearing that it's just Christian homophobes forcing their beliefs on other people. Because that simply isn't true.
That, and the fear of change you mentioned. It's really a fear issue. But you know, if humans had never overcome their fear of change, we'd still sit huddled in caves.
Of course. My point wasn't that we shouldn't overcome fears; my point was that the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious one, but one of fear that crosses religious boundaries. It's a very different point. But then, my points are always misinterpreted, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. ;)
But on that note, I will say that not all fears necessarily need to be overcome, and that not all societal changes that the human mind can contemplate have to be made. There were some changes made in some societies that, in retrospect, weren't very good/beneficial ideas at all, you know.
Reply
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology. If they are sexist, they'll lap up the whole "wife should be in submission" stuff. But they probably would've been homophobic/sexist/kumquat even without the religion; the religion just gave them an extra justification. Though IME, people who believe to have a religious justification tend to be particularly uncompromising about their convictions, because then there's that whole "I have to do that and believe that to please God" and "if I don't do that, my whole family will go to hell" hovering over their heads. If God is important to someone, that's a tough thing to go against, I can understand as much.
Reply
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change!"
The problem with fundamentalism is taking a sacred scripture or a sacred teaching and putting it on a pedestal as something that must absolutely never be questioned under any circumstances.
For me, if I have to choose between a sacred book and common sense or between a sacred book and compassion, I'll choose common sense and compassion every time, thank you very much.
Fundamentalism, as I understand it (you may have a different definition of the word, esp. when you call yourself "one of those fundies"), is what I call "100% religion" or "all-or-nothing religion". It's like, "If the teachings of our religion are true, they must be 100% true, no exceptions." Like the problem with the Hare Krishnas (at least it's a problem IMO) is that they have the stance that what Prabhupada (their founder) said is the Absolute Truth and must not be questioned. All of what he said. Whether it's "we never went to the moon" or "women are less intelligent and should be treated like children", or whatever. Myself, I'm asking, why does it have to be all or nothing? Why shouldn't it be possible that what Prabhupada said about (for instance) the moon isn't true and love of Krishna (God) is still the goal of life? Likewise, why shouldn't it be possible that the Earth is older than 6000 years and homosexual love is just as blessed and beautiful as heterosexual love, and God is still God and Christ is still Lord? Why does it have to be "all is true", as if the only alternative was "nothing is true"? Why should the principle "take only what's helpful" be applicable to everything except religion?
The Bible or the [insert sacred scripture] may come from God, but it was still written down by people who were human, and were the product of their culture. What worked within the context of their culture must not necessarily work for us.
Like with Prabhupada, I have little doubt that he was a man who was deeply devoted to God, and sincerely wanted to teach love of God, but isn't it possible that he was still, on some level, a product of his culture (i.e. early 20th century Bengali culture)? But you see, in the Hare Krishna movement, you're not supposed to say (or even think) that.
I'm very, very skeptical of any system that forbids people to question things and exercise their common sense and think for themselves. If something's really Truth (capital t), it will stand even after questioning, don't you think?
my point was that the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious one, but one of fear that crosses religious boundaries. It's a very different point.
Okay, okay, I get your point.
But on that note, I will say that not all fears necessarily need to be overcome, and that not all societal changes that the human mind can contemplate have to be made.
That too.
Reply
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
Strange things happen in shamanistic societies, yes. :) And even so, it wasn't the general populace that was allowed to do this kind of thing. The idea of equalizing homosexual unions with heterosexual marriages within the general population is, as far as know, something totally new and different in human society. Even in certain city-states in ancient Greece -- where it was felt that you married a woman in order to have legitimate children to inherit your possessions and carry on the family name, but for real, meaningful love, you had a male lover -- guys weren't allowed to marry their male lover. They could parade them all over the place and no one thought oddly of it, but you simply did not marry your male lover. So even in that most accepting-of-homosexuality atmosphere, gay marriage still wasn't allowed. So, like I said, something new. And, as I said, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm not sure that I'll agree that whatever happens will be a good idea, but it'll still be interesting to watch it unfold.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
So the Amish and the Hare Krishnas have something in common, then? ...Iiiiiinteresting. :)
Anyway, while I personally (and obviously) know nothing of Hare Krishnas (other than to avoid them at all costs ;) ) and their philosophies, I will say that this is a good example of what I'm saying, indeed. The issue of anti-homosexuality/anti-gay-marriage is not simply one of certain vocal Christians being loudly averse to it. Many different religions -- and people of no religion at all -- are averse to it as well. I wish more people would open up their eyes (and minds) and acknowledge this. Instead, they seem to reflexively blame their favorite scapegoats, of course. :\
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology.
Oh yes, indeed. In fact, I think preconceived notions and beliefs draw people to certain religions in general, not just to certain "tenets" of that religion. For instance, if one believes in or is attracted by the concept of reincarnation, one will naturally seek out information on religions that advocate or embrace that concept. In my own case, I originally got into Buddhism because I had reason to believe that reincarnation was true.
But yes, once into a certain religion/belief structure, certain tenets will be attractive to certain people, based upon their pre-existing biases and prejudices. I don't think that's necessarily a cynical view; it's simply an accurate assessment of human nature.
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change!"
"Things" change, yes. But you know what? God does not change. And maybe that's the problem that many people have with Him. Those people see having principles that don't change with time and popular opinion and following those principles to the letter as a bad thing. I happen to see it as a good thing, myself.
Reply
That's because historically, for a long time, marriage generally wasn't a matter of "real, meaningful love"; it was a matter of ownership and "perpetuing the line". A wife was a piece of property, just like cattle, and her main purpose was to produce children. So for a man in those days, it would've seemed absurd and insulting to call his male beloved (who of course couldn't bear children, and whom he didn't consider mere property) his "wife".
The example is also interesting because it shows that sexism and homophobia - even though they often go hand in hand - can exist separately from each other. The society of Ancient Greece was both very non-homophobic and very sexist - married women weren't even allowed to leave the house. Just as a side note.
Reply
I went to Dictionary.com and when I typed in "fundamentalist", this is what it spit back at me:
1) A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2) often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Of course, the latter applies only to Christian fundamentalists. And I suppose that the definition of the word can be different for different people. But for me, the first part of Definition 1 is the most important part: A return to fundamental (meaning, foundational) principles. For me (and so it should be for any Christian) the foundation of Christianity is the Bible, all of which (including the "inconsistencies" that some folks often triumphantly point out) I believe to be the Word of God, yes. As such, it is what I follow for guidance. Or at least, it is what I should follow; I am far from perfect and there are many things that I do not understand and that I question every day in God's word.
See, all my life, my favorite word has been "why"; it is no different now that I am a "fundamentalist". In fact, it's probably even worse. And I have actually been commended for that characteristic by one very "fundamentalist" group (Answers in Genesis) when I wrote to them asking questions...which reminds my that I have still more questions that I need to ask of them, but... Anyway, the person answering my questions compared me to a Berean ("Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11, emphasis mine); he didn't chastise me for questioning their beliefs and practices. In fact, in my experience, most "fundies" want you to ask questions of them so that they can attempt to give you the answers that you seek. Personally, I respect people who ask intelligent questions. As a favorite Christian song of mine goes: "You can't find the answers/'Til you learn to question/You won't appear stupid/Just ask for direction."
So, as I see it, being a fundamentalist doesn't mean that you unquestioningly believe everything you're told to believe and that you put sacred texts on some sort of untouchable, unquestionable pedestal, but rather that you read, you study, and you question, sometimes questioning God directly. He doesn't care if you question. Some people might care and become offended if you question them and their beliefs, but God doesn't mind at all. He knows the truth and He knows that the only way that some humans (me, for one) will see that truth is by fighting, questioning, arguing, yelling, kicking, screaming, biting, and scratching it until they can raise no more objections to it and all of their questions have been answered to their satisfaction. That's just the way it is for me. And, like I said, I have not been censured for it. While all of my questions have not yet been answered and likely never will be fully answered until I get to heaven, I now have enough faith to believe anyway. And that is an entirely new thing for me, a person who used to be (and who was trained to be) the ultimate skeptic. So I have not been brainwashed or coerced, I have not become stupid, and I do not mind when people ask me questions about my beliefs. I may not have all the answers to them right when they ask them, but I will find them, if I can.
So...uh, did I answer the question? :) Well, there's my thoughts on the issue, anyway. :)
Reply
Because that sounds suspiciously like a New Age-y, "all paths lead to God" philosophy, which is entirely false.
Oh, believe me, I avidly and enthusiastically went down that road at one point. Not for nothing did I once consider Madonna's "Sky Fits Heaven" to be a very "me" song. I once thought that I could pick and choose from amongst the world's great philosophies and religions and that everything would still be OK, that I'd be a "good person" and go to heaven and all that New Age crud. But, it isn't true. In some ways, I wish that it was true -- it would be so much easier, dangit! -- but it is not. Like as not, we must take the narrow road, as Jesus said, if we wish to follow Him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Fair? Perhaps not in our modern minds, no. But it is simply the way it is.
The Bible or the [insert sacred scripture] may come from God, but it was still written down by people who were human, and were the product of their culture. What worked within the context of their culture must not necessarily work for us.
But how do we decide, then? How do we go about picking and choosing from amongst the words and commandments of the Bible? How do we decide what is applicable and what is no longer applicable in our culture? Do we just follow the things we like, that are inoffensive, and that are still politically correct while conveniently ignoring all those things that make us uncomfortable in our "freer" and more "advanced" society? Or would it be better to just put our own will into submission under God's and just do and believe all of what the book says and not worry what other people think about it?
Mind you, I don't have the answers to those questions, and I'm not sure that anyone else does. They are questions that I often ask, but I'm just muddling through like everyone else. For now, my thinking is that if I feel strongly compelled to follow a certain point in the Bible, I will. For instance, I very rarely swear anymore, which is a new thing for a born-and-bred guttermouth like me. I don't even really say, "Oh my God!" anymore. I felt compelled to make that change in my life. But I don't, for instance, wear a head covering and refrain from cutting my hair, and I don't feel remotely compelled to do those things. Now, as time goes on, I might feel strongly about those issues or other issues, and I'll certainly be open to those things if that happens. Otherwise, I just try to focus on those issues which are important to me, personally, and that I struggle with. The rest either will or will not come in time. I'm content to wait and see.
I'm very, very skeptical of any system that forbids people to question things and exercise their common sense and think for themselves. If something's really Truth (capital t), it will stand even after questioning, don't you think?
Indeed, I do. Any belief system that cannot withstand a bit of logical questioning cannot be true. Which, as I said, is why I question all the time. So far, I have not been able to un-convince myself, even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and a big fan of critical thinking. If someone presents an argument, my first impulse is to pick holes in it. That's what happens here on LiveJournal, even. :) Given that, this whole "fundie" thing must have some merit. Because, believe me, I fought tooth and nail against it, bombarded it with all kinds of questions...but ultimately, as I said, found Truth in it. Of course not all folks who call themselves "fundamentalist" are like me (Yes, I'm looking at you, Jerry Falwell), and it's for this reason that I don't really like or often use such labels. But, unfortunately, they tend to be convenient. :)
Reply
That's your belief. I'll still have mine, and I hope we can still respect each other as people regardless.
Or would it be better to just put our own will into submission under God's and just do and believe all of what the book says and not worry what other people think about it?
All of what the book says? Including bits like the "if a man rapes an unmarried girl, his punishment should be that he has to marry her"? Would you want your daughter to marry her rapist? What about the "parents should stone a rebellious son" bit?
But you know, a lot of what you said about putting your own will under submission, etc. sound a lot like what you could've heard from my mouth, had you met me a few years earlier. See, the reason I now feel about fundamentalism the way I do is that I was into a more "fundamentalist" flavour of religion for some time myself, and found out through experience that it's not for me. And believe me, I'm questioning my new stance, too.
Which, as I said, is why I question all the time.
This is where we're alike again, differing beliefs nonewithstanding. :) And you know, if you've found your "home" and your Truth and your happiness in "fundie" Christianity, I sincerly wish you all the best for your walk with the Lord. I'll be over here in my corner as a critically questioning but (so I hope) sincerly God-seeking "New Age-y" person; and (like I said) I hope we can both respect each other, different beliefs and all. :)
Reply
Not that I want to open this particular can of worms...but I will point out that the current breed of creationists vehemently opposes the idea of the fixity of species, the concept that species don't adapt and, indeed, evolve. Even more startlingly for the grossly uninformed, most creationists do not at all deny that individual species do, indeed, evolve from other species. (Although it's true that they don't tend to use the word "evolve" itself, probably because it has become a loaded word from which they want to separate themselves. They prefer the word "adapt", particularly that species "adapt within their kind"). So you see, even these most fundamental of "fundies" don't oppose the idea of change at all, even evolutionary ones. Amazing, isn't it? :)
All sarcasm aside, my point is: Everyone fears change, not just one particular spiritual persuasion.
Were equal rights granted to black people "eventually" because Martin Luther King and all the people of the Civil Rights Movement kept their mouths shut and didn't make a big deal about having to sit at the back of the bus?
Again, my point was misunderstood. As I said in my original post, before the brouhaha, America was already moving in the direction of gay unions being granted equal legal rights, if not allowing them to be called "marriages". Two states already recognized "civil unions" between same-sex partners as equal, legally, to a heterosexual marriage. The gay couple who adopted my daughter, for instance, lives in one of them (Vermont), and their union is recognized fully as legal as any heterosexual marriage. And I have no doubt that other states would have moved in the same direction, as well. And, in fact, other states were moving, quietly and without making a huge fuss, in that direction.
But, once a big stink was made, that progress was largely halted, and the whole thing has now become a Big Political Issue(TM), on a par with, say, abortion. I lamented the fact that the progress that was being made was halted by people (on both sides of the issue) righteously waving banners.
Now, in cases like the civil rights movement, a revolution needed to happen because Southern society wasn't at the time moving in the direction that it needed to move. With gay rights -- probably because of the civil rights movement that had already happened -- I really don't think a revolution was necessary, for the reasons that I stated. Now that a fuss has been made, though...Well, I fear that the issue will be in deadlock for a good long time to come, just like any other Big Political Issue(TM), when it didn't have to be that way. Great job, guys. :\
I refuse to believe that a loving, all-merciful God has nothing better to do than condemn people for whom they love.
On that note, God doesn't and never did "condemn" people for homosexual behavior or for any other sin. Some folks out there need to read Leviticus, methinks. (Yes, it's the single most boring book in the Bible, but...It's good for you! :) ) Rather, it's people who choose to condemn; they choose to (unjustly) condemn other people and they choose to condemn themselves. God has nothing to do with it, really, other than the fact that He laid down the rules. People simply have to choose to follow those rules or not. Simple as that. That's the wonderful thing about free will, you see. :) I think that's a crucial issue that many people seem to have forgotten...
Reply
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
Also thanks for clearing up your other points.
Reply
Leave a comment