In a move that may have escaped the attention of most of us when it happened, the city of San Francisco approved a resolution in March 2006 condemning the teachings of the Catholic Church, and ultimately the teachings of the Bible.
CNS News reports on a court case involving the resolution, which apparently was in response to a directive from Cardinal William Levada that the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing adopted children in homosexual homes.
Since the Bible repeatedly teaches that God's design for the expression of human sexuality is between a man and a woman in marriage for life, and the Bible repeatedly teaches that homosexuality is a violation of that design and is immoral, and establishes marriage as the environment for raising children, Cardinal Levada's actions were completely proper and in keeping with Christianity's central document, as well in the interest of the good health and development of children.
San Francisco, however, responded with a politically correct condemnation of this moral and healthy directive. The city government said of the directive:
Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.
Actually, I think this statement is 100% applicable to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors themselves. They have displayed hateful and discriminatory rhetoric against the religious teachings which founded their country and their state, the religious teachings of the Almighty God to whom they express gratitude in their state constitution.
Their advocacy of placing adopted children in homes where they will be robbed of one parentive sex, and placed at physical and emotional risk, is insulting, callous and insensitive to the developmental needs of children. Such ignorance and callous disregard for the welfare of children on the part of a governing body has seldom if ever been recorded in the annals of human history.
The Catholic League and two Catholic residents of San Francisco filed a complaint against San Francisco. However, District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said the Catholic Church was just asking for it by opposing homosexual adoptions.
Whether or not the city's actions violated the First Amendment, I don't know. I do know the city's embrace and celebration of homosexuality defies the moral foundation of the state of California, the United States and Western civilization. The city's advocacy of placing children in homosexual homes violates common sense and the good of developing children.
For that, they deserve the strongest moral and ethical condemnation.
In a related story, San Francisco is considering a proposal to change the name of the city to "Sodom." Okay, not really, but one has to wonder if it might be in order...
9 comments:
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." Leviticus 12:2, 5
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
These are just a few verses that look down upon women. According to the Bible, women are worse than death, require the mother to take twice as long of a cleansing ritual after they are born, and are not allowed to speak in church.
Now, I could also quote Galatians 3:28, which says that we are all one in Christ, regardless of class, gender, or ethnicity, and the many egalitarian statements Jesus made regarding men and women. And it's true that the Old Testament rituals are irrelevant today, and that most Christians do not follow rules such as the one laid out in 1 Corinthians. But that also doesn't change the fact that at one point in time, it WAS acceptable to say such things about women, and to treat them like second-class members of the early church. Why? Simply because they're women.
So regardless of how we now rationalize what the Bible says, it cannot be denied that the scriptures do say some hateful and discriminatory things. They do not carry the authority they once did, but they are present for all to read, nonetheless.
And Bob, I'm really itching to know what exactly you have in mind with the "strongest moral and ethical condemnation" these people in California deserve. Do you really think you have the authority to dole out such judgments?
To that end, I'll remind you of one more verse: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." John 8:7
alexh2007, I see that you've sharpened your knowledge of the Bible enough to know without being told that we are no longer under the old Mosaic Law. That's good.
The Bible does not, however, say hateful and discriminatory thing, at least not in the sense you mean. Are we to hate sin? Yes. Are we to discriminate between good and bad actions and things? Yes. Does God see women as second-class? No, though he does say that men and women are different and have different functions.
To illustrate, I'll retell an example I heard several years ago. Which is stronger: a plastic plate or China? Which is worth more? Which is more durable: denim or silk? Which is worth more? There are different roles and functions, each with its own inherent value.
In the area of sexuality, the role of men is to marry a woman for life and love her according to Ephesians 5. The role of women in sexuality is to marry a man and love him according to Ephesians 5.
As for the moral and ethical condemnation these apostates in San Francisco deserve, something along the lines of what I said would be good: that their advocacy of homosexuality and placing children in homosexual homes is immoral, unBiblical, unhealthy and negligent.
And I see you couldn't resist the tired old liberal misuse of Scripture on judgment. I don't plan on stoning anyone, but God does make it clear that we are to have moral judgment and discernment, and to warn people about immoral behavior (Ezekiel 3:18, 1 Corinthians 5:9, 1 Corinthians 6:2-3, 1 Corinthians 15:36, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:17, Jude 1:4, 2 Corinthians10:5, etc.)
How is it NOT discriminatory to say that men can speak in church but women can't?
And for the record, I'm not a liberal, despite what you assume. I happen to be moderate. It lets me sit back and watch with amusement as you conservatives and liberals take shots at each other. I prefer being asked where I stand on the issues, not pigeon-holing myself into one camp or the other and letting people stereotype me as pro-this and anti-that, thanks.
The historical context of the Scripture reference you mentioned was where women were speaking out and taking leadership in the church that God expected men to exercise. Again, men and women have different God-ordained roles.
If you say you're a "moderate," okay. But in my experience, a "moderate" is simply a liberal who's slightly less radical and outspoken than most other liberals. Other than your professed support of capital punishment, I haven't seen a whole lot that convinces me you're very "moderate."
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets..."
Notice the definitive article 'the' and the singular 'woman', alexh, and you'll discover the passage speaks of a kind of woman, not women in general. And what Solomon is saying is certainly true.
"An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life." Proverbs 31:10-12 This is also quite true!
The rules laid down in Levitcus were almost always for health or sanitary reasons. In modern times we have learned the wisdom of many such prohibitions like the eating of pork and hare (trichinosis and tularemia), others are still unclear. As to the difference in sequestering a woman after the birth of a male vs. a female it is uncertain, but knowing a little about the different hormones involved between a male and female it is not too difficult for me to believe that God knew something I just don't quite understand. Modern obstetric practices may have mitigated these differences.
As you have noted, alexh, there are numerous passages in the New Testament that speak of women as equally precious to God and deserving of respect and kindness from men. It can be argued, in fact, that Christianity advanced the position of women in society to a greater extent than any other societal change in history.
For the record, Mr. Ellis and I are in agreement on this issue. I hope that eases your concern about some perceived differences of opinion at Dakota Voice. I'm going to try real hard to always agree with Bob. He's the boss;>)
Bob,
You haven't seen much that convinces you I'm moderate because I've shared only a fraction of my views with you. I visit and comment on leftist blogs and seem pretty conservative compared to the full-out liberals there. Whatever your experience might be, MY experience tells me that people are people. They can be liberal on some issues and surprisingly conservative on others. From what I've gathered from your articles and comments, you see the world as "conservatives vs. everyone else." To you, if someone isn't a conservative, he must be a liberal, in one form or another. That's simply not the way it really is.
Anyway, to get back on point, what I'm trying to get at is that people use the Bible to justify whatever they want. And there are enough contradictions in the Bible (the woman is more bitter than death, a wife is worth more than jewels, etc) to facilitate this. Gay people (politically active or not) look at verses like Leviticus 20:13 and interpret them as hateful because, well, they call for the death of gay people. An enlightened mind knows that while the prohibition is still in place, according to Christian theology, the punishment is obsolete. But -- and this is the most important part -- not all Christians believe that. Try explaining to Fred Phelps that his hateful, Bible-fueled campaign against gay people is unbiblical. He'd tell you you're crazy.
It's a slippery slope you're on. The Bible instructs Christians to think that homosexual behavior is an abomination. Are you honestly surprised that many of your fellow believers take it one step further and treat homosexual PEOPLE as abominations as well? This is a very unsettling and scary fact for many gay people, and I think their reaction to call the Bible hateful and discriminatory is not unreasonable. There needs to be more understanding and empathy coming from both sides of the issue.
I'll grant you that some people are inconsistent in their philosophy, preferring buffet-style living where they choose elements which are most advantageous to them at the moment. I prefer to have as consistent a philosophy as possible, and do my best to live out that philosophy; as Christ said in Revelation, he'd rather people be hot or cold, but professed disgust for the lukewarm.
If people choose to take the same buffet-style approach to the Bible and try to justify atrocities or unBiblical behavior, there's nothing I can do to stop that. People will do that with the best written instruction that can possibly be dreamed up by God or man...and they do all the time.
But if they read the entire Bible in context with itself, they'll see that God abhors sin, but loves sinners enough to die for them. Jesus suffered a cruel, humiliating death to buy the eternal forgiveness that a dirtbag like me needed.
God would have been justified in snuffing me out for my sins. I was a foul-mouthed, skirt-chasing, hard-drinking scoundrel who didn't deserve God's mercy, yet Jesus loved me enough to let himself be slapped around, spit on, have his beard pulled out, whipped until his back was hamburger, forced to carry his own cross through the streets, then allowed himself to be nailed to that cross until he died.
If the Son of God would do all that to save the likes of me, what right do I have to do violence to a homosexual or anyone else--and in His name, too boot?
But just as his message was love, it was also "Go and sin no more." And he instructed me to tell others about what was passed on to me.
I have empathy with the homosexual; my sins are despicable and nailed Christ to the cross. But none of us can receive the gift Christ bought for us if we insist our sins aren't sins and try to hang onto them.
As a Catholic Bible Thumper, I consider it meritorious that "Sodom" so hates my faith, Church and ordained representatives. Christ promised that I'd be persecuted and He always makes good on His promises.
Why does Christianity seem like nothing more than institutionalized masochism?
Post a Comment