I came across this today:

The following was written by a Christian lady, married, professional,
heterosexual, with grown children:
_____
Alan Keyes, conservative sometime candidate for the presidency of the United
States and now candidate for Senator from Illinois, has recently said that
lesbians are “sinners” and “selfish hedonists.”
As a Roman Catholic Christian (like Keyes) and as a straight woman, I’d like
to dissect this statement.
1. “Sinners.” Catholic theology teaches that all men and women are
sinners, so this is kind of non-news. Keyes could, with equal accuracy, have
proclaimed that all garbage collectors are sinners, or all politicians are
sinners, or whoever. This statement seems hardly worth the ink it takes to
print it, or the breath it takes so say it.
2. “Selfish hedonists.” This is the meat of Keyes’ statement, and
I am frankly startled by it. Note the implication. This is a statement that
straight sex is less fun than lesbian sex. Now, this may or may not be true,
but I’m wondering how Alan Keyes, who, whatever else he is, is a guy, would
know this.
So. Where are we? Lesbians are “hedonists”, meaning, pleasure-seekers. Their
sex is more fun, Keyes is saying. If I were sufficiently “selfish” that’s
what I’d be doing. But no. Since I am “unselfish” and I’m not apparently
interested in pleasure, I, as a straight woman, will be the stoic, bravely
putting up with (less pleasurable? entirely non-pleasurable?) sex with a
man, for the greater good or something. How virtuous of me, right?
My husband was especially pleased by this insight, needless to say.

Who owns the term “marriage?” Is “marriage” a term that belongs to the Church, society independent of the Church, or both?
I have heard it said many times that most gay people are not that concerned with getting “married,” per say, meaning that all the ceremonial trappings and many of the ideas of heterosexual marriage are not a necessity for the survival of their relationships. After all, successful gay couples have had to survive without State and Church approval, and in most cases within hostile environments. Whether the Church gives its blessing or the State gives them a license does not make their relationship any more valid in their own experience. Considering that nearly half of all heterosexual marriages do not survive, including born-again Christian marriages, State and Church sanction will not make that much difference in the good survival of their relationships, it seems. Yet, for purposes of equal treatment under the law, at least State sanction can be an important aspect of gay relationships – survivor benefits, rights of visitation, taxes, equal treatment in housing, work, et cetera.
Is the word “marriage” the domain of the Church? This means the Church needs a well-developed theology of marriage, which it lacks. (Who controls marriage – is a couple married when they receive the piece of paper from the State, or when they finish the ceremony within a Church? Perhaps neither, but when intercourse first takes place? Does the Church want to relinquish control to the State?) The problem is that the Church and Christians have been such miserable failures concerning marriage survival rates.
What about Civil-Unions? The way the State deals with the issue gay couples and the way the Church deals with the issue should be very different. When the Church demands that the State accept its definitions and reasoning that result in the denial of equal protection for one segment of the population, then we have problems with the establishment of religion…

I pulled the weblog-post below from Andrew Sullivan’s weblog. It doesn’t surprise me, but reading through what Dew wrote reminded me of thoughts I had back in the early-to-mid 80’s when I was in the height of my Evangelical self. (Click the link below to read the post. It may make my comments that follow more understandable.)
As absurd as this sounds, I used to wonder how non-Christian parents could ever really love their children! After all, the ability to love came only from Jesus. We could only truly love when we were in relationship with Jesus, so those who were not could not really love anything, but maybe themselves or evil. I would think that non-Christian parents were only interested in themselves – satisfying their own desires, lusts, or needs without putting their children or their children’s needs before their own. I actually could not conceive of how non-Christian parents could truly love their children.
Think about that! What was I thinking? I was taking the Religious Right’s ideas to some of their logical conclusions, I believe. These conclusions extend to just about every aspect of live.
Now consider the Republican Party and the political process – I now hear or read Religious Right politicos talking about RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only). The term “RINO” applies to any Republican who does not support the policy points of the Religious Right. John McCain, Giuliani, or any moderate are examples, and I believe they are including non-Christian Republicans in that category as well.
After all, to have a country so instituted by God’s will as is the United States, and knowing that our country is divinely chosen to fulfill a great purpose in the world, and knowing that a government’s role is to see to the development of God’s purposes, then only “born-again” Christians can rightfully lead this country. Since godly leadership can only be elected by those who approve of God’s plan for the nation, then eventually, if left to their own devises, the Religious Right over time would justify limiting the vote to only those who can prove a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. After all, our founding documents first limited voting rights to landed men, so there is a Constitutional precedent for restricting those who can vote, just as long as it is not according to skin color or gender (those characteristics are enshrined in the Constitution). Non-Christians would only selfishly vote for those things that are going to benefit them, and those things will obviously be ungodly. Evil can only beget evil.
Thank God, and I mean it, that I am no longer in that mind-set (even though my current one is probably just as warped!).

Continue reading →

And it came to pass that God visited the earth, and He did behold a series of billboard ads attributing to Him utterances of such banality that they would never pass His lips in a billion years. And it came to pass that God in His wrath considered a libel suit, but in the end opted simply to mount a cantankerous, contradictory ad campaign of His own. . . .
I never said, “Thou shalt not think.” – God
Okay, you’ve got multiplying down. Now let’s try replenishing for a while. – God
I don’t care who started it. Just stop it. – God
If you seek to know my ways, read a damn science book. – God
You’d better have stopped fighting by the time I get back, or you’re all grounded. – God
If I wanted you to have seven kids, I would have given you a bigger planet. – God
You’re not tracking those bloody footprints in here. – God
E=mc2. Yeah, that’s one of mine. – God
You can have another kid when you learn to take care of the first one. – God
The dinosaurs didn’t believe in you either. – God
Just look at this planet! Do you expect me to clean this up? – God
Here’s a clue=ADif they say they’re doing it in my name, they’re lying. – God
I’m concerned about children’s education. I favor lower child-to-parent ratios. – God
I gave you a bigger brain for a reason. Start using it. – God
If you don’t clean this place up, you won’t get another millennium. – God
I don’t blame video games when my children start shooting each other. – God
I like to kick things off with a bang. A Big Bang. – God
If you didn’t hear it straight from my lips, take it with a grain of salt. – God
All this will someday be your children’s. – God
There is no such thing as killing in my name. – God
Stop smirking, America. I’m talking to you, too. – God

This is a comment written to Sojourners concerning their “Take Back Our Faith” campaign. The writer sums-up well my own thoughts on the matter…

God is not a political football to be kicked around by Democrats and Republicans. Neither party is more Godlike than the other, and God does not favor one party over the other. God is not pulling for either George W. Bush or John Kerry to be America’s next president. Our Creator gives us the freedom to make right and wrong choices, even the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic. We reap the consequences of our choices, good or bad.
But what God does require of us is that we do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly, not arrogantly, with our God. We must love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbors as well as we love ourselves. God wants all of us to walk the walk, not just talk the religious talk. If we do what God requires of us, it will help us to make the right choices in the voting booth. We dishonor and displease God when we deliberately use God for political gain. I am a person of faith who doesn’t need Jerry Falwell to tell me who to vote for.

The convention is gearing up. I’m sick, so I’m not going to be able to do as much as I had wanted, but that’s life.
Have you heard of RINO’s? RINO’s are “Republicans in name only.” I have come across this term twice now and it is used by Religious Right Republicans to categorize all those other Republicans who do not agree with their beliefs. Now, according to them, if you are not a born-again Christian completely backing the agenda’s of the Religious Right, then you are not really a Republican.
Here is the second reference I’ve read from CitizenLink (Focus on the Family):

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, said despite Cheney’s statement, the Republican Party platform unveiled at next week’s national convention will strongly endorse traditional marriage. Still, she expects the convention itself to be contentious.
“This convention may turn into quite a circus,” Lafferty said. “With the threat of disruptive protests and a program overloaded with RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), there will be no shortage of clowns in New York.”
But Lafferty doesn’t think Christian conservatives should be too disturbed by what liberal Republicans have to say.
“Don’t be distracted by (California Gov. Arnold) Schwarzenegger or (former N.Y. Mayor Rudy) Giuliani or even the vice president,” Lafferty said. “It is what George Bush says that counts, and he has been faithful and fearless on this important issue.”
This is why I think this president and the Religious Right are so dangerous. The wedding of faith/religion/spirituality and nationalism never adds to either.

Take Back Our Faith is an initiative from Sojourners. The following is an appeal from Jim Willis from Sojourners. Read, sign, and vote – please!

An Election Year Campaign: Take Back Our Faith
by Jim Wallis
I’ve only asked you to do this once before – to send an e-mail alert to everybody you know. The last time was to help us get out the “6-point plan,” which was a concrete alternative to war with Iraq offered by American religious leaders at the midnight hour. That plan had an enormous impact and was heard at the highest levels of the U.S. and U.K. governments, even as the leaders of both countries were bent on war.
This campaign is to raise the voice of Christian conscience in Election 2004, and to challenge the theologically outrageous claims of the Religious Right that George W. Bush is God’s ordained candidate and that good Christians can only vote for him. As incredible as those statements are, it is indeed what people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are saying. They must not go unanswered. Faithful Christian citizenship demands that the Religious Right be challenged.
Sojourners is offering an alternative voice and giving thousands of Christians an opportunity to make their voices heard. On Monday, we sent you a petition to sign that sends a clear message to the Religious Right, to the candidates, and to America that the Falwells and Robertsons don’t speak for us, and that we will hold all the candidates accountable to a wide range of Christian ethical and biblical principles. If you have not yet signed the petition, click here. And then forward it to your family, friends, and others.
This petition will also be turned into a full-page ad in The New York Times and other key newspapers around the country. We are also planning an extensive online campaign to reach out to people around the country who care about faith and politics. By doing so, we hope to change the debate on the “religious issues” in this campaign. Instead of a narrow media focus on abortion and gay marriage, we will also raise the religious issues of poverty, the environment, war, truth-telling, human rights, a moral response to terrorism, and a consistent ethic of human life as the criteria that people of faith ought to bring to this election.
I’ve consistently said that religion could be a key factor in this election. You can help us make sure it’s being discussed in a fuller and deeper way than the leaders of the Religious Right have. Listening to them, it feels like our faith has been stolen. As I said in my column last week, it’s time to take back our faith. That indeed is the name of this campaign – “Take Back Our Faith.”
I believe that the era of the Religious Right is coming to an end, and the time of progressive prophetic faith has arrived. Let’s make that clear in Election 2004. If this petition speaks for you, please sign it. Send it to friends and family, to people in your church, to your whole e-mail list! Donate to help place ads in The New York Times and other newspapers around the country, along with our online campaign. Help us change the debate. In the first 24 hours, more than 10,000 people already signed the petition! That’s a great start to what could be a very important campaign for America’s future. And you can help make that possible.
How do you get involved?
1. Read and sign the petition: http://www.takebackourfaith.org
2. Tell everyone you know; and
3. Donate today to make your voice heard!
Together, we can take back our faith.

This from CitizenLink (from Focus on the Family) concerning The Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, coming before the House of Representatives:

Charlie Jarvis of the United Seniors Association said our Founding Fathers would find today’s judicial tyranny an outrageous offense to the Constitution and their original intentions because they never intended the courts to be de facto policy-makers unaccountable to other branches of government.

I hear over and over again that the judiciary is “taking over the country” and acting in ways contrary to the Constitution. How? The courts rule on issues brought before them, and the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws already passed or actions already taken nationally. There will be people who disagree with the rulings, but that does not mean that the Court is acting contrary to the constitutional powers given it. If we do not like the ruling, our elected representatives can pass another law, they can change the make-up of the court, or they can impeach judges. There are plenty of options for the Executive and Legislative branches of government to reign in the court, if necessary and if they have the will to do so.
The problem with the Religious Right and those making accusations against “activist judges” who are ruling on laws restricting homosexual civil-marriage and relationships is not that the courts are ruling dictatorially, but that the Religious Right is loosing the culture war on this issue. Our elected officials are not doing what the Religious Right demands them to do to keep the courts from ruling on the constitutionality of laws enacted that promote their cultural/social agendas. They do not have the votes in the Legislative branch to confront the Judicial branch in constitutional ways. There are not the votes in the House or the Senate to change the courts, re-enact constitutionally sound legislation, or impeach the judges. The Religious Right has realized some successes, but many are short lived when they are analyzed constitutionally. The Religious Right is loosing the cultural-war on homosexuality, just like bigots lost the cultural-war on black civil-rights. The Religious Right cannot abide by this, so they attempt to spin the whole argument from their inability to garner the votes to impose their will or the constitutionality of some of their successes, but towards idea that the courts have gone beyond their constitutional bounds and are no longer acting according to their constitutional prerogatives.

An enteresting enty by Jason at Positive Liberty concerning a new study that comments on the link, or lack of, between lust and love.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience …. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason … You start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which they in fact had a right to refuse, and finally kindnesses which no one but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties.” –
– C.S. Lewis