tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post7279577178777776073..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Keeping Religion out of Politics, and Vice VersaA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-88954858837184636042010-08-20T11:47:08.564-07:002010-08-20T11:47:08.564-07:00(continued from above) Moreover, the increase in c...(continued from above) Moreover, the increase in cost of healthcare for those afflicted with the negative outcomes of the various extramarital sexual behaviors engender is considerable. I wonder (considering Obama's appointment of gays and lesbians to office) if the whole health care scheme is aimed at forcing heterosexual clean-living folks to pay more for healthcare and lowering the cost for the GLBTQ crowd. Maybe that's what Obama meant by re-distributing wealth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71487733894519315262010-08-19T20:41:02.921-07:002010-08-19T20:41:02.921-07:00Don, I am happy to link to your posts; you run an ...Don, I am happy to link to your posts; you run an excellent blog. And thank you for linking back.<br /><br />To say that "marriage is a divine institution from the start" is to profess what we believe as Christians (and presumably the Jews would agree), but secular society will not go along with our beliefs.<br /><br />All I am saying is: let secular society have the institutions they want to vote for -- just keep them from calling it "marriage", via a truce: we Christians won't interfere with your decisions as long as you stay out of ours. Secular society in no way sees itself as bound by tradition to our point of view, so in that respect, they are a will-o'-the-wisp. Leave them to stew in their own secular juices -- and if they end up learning the reasons why traditional marriage has endured for so long, then so much the better.<br /><br />But at the same time, I wholly agree with you that it is less than honest to deny church marriage to elderly couples (or others similarly affected) just on the ground that they don't wish to be "civilly" married, because of the adverse consequences. The church needs to cease seeing itself as an agent of the State in performing marriages. <br /><br />A lot of clergy I know are already refusing to attest as an officiant on the civil marriage license, and I encourage that behavior. Of course, many are doing it out of a perceived solidarity with those who want the State to permit same-sex marriages, but that doesn't matter to me. By encouraging them not to act as agents of state-sanctioned marriage, I am furthering what I hope will be the end of the unholy cooperation between church and state on so-called "marriage."<br /><br />The sooner that cooperation ends, the better it will be for both the church and the state.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-78799251557291749242010-08-19T19:28:33.008-07:002010-08-19T19:28:33.008-07:00Since my website's post links appear on yours ...Since my website's post links appear on yours (with many thanks), you're probably aware that I've hammered the case for the abolition of civil marriage for a long time. So I will not belabour the point.<br /><br />I don't quite see the development of marriage the way you do. Although the economic purpose of marriage is certainly a part of it, marriage is a divine institution from the start, and antedates the state. As a result, there's no good reason why the state must have a role in same, which is an assumption of both the proponents and opponents of what should be properly called same sex civil marriage.<br /><br />Marriage by contract has worked in societies for many years. I have an article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune about a distant relative's elaborate marriage contract from the days when the Spanish ruled the city. It's worked on this soil before and can do so again.<br /><br />As far as your mention of elderly people not wanting to mess up their finances with civil marriage, I would point you to <a href="http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2009/09/16/theres-more-to-frades-allowance-of-same-sex-blessings-in-se-florida-than-meets-the-eye/" rel="nofollow">this act of duplicity</a> from my "home diocese."Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520020316466378352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-41843960061337466522010-08-19T11:09:26.284-07:002010-08-19T11:09:26.284-07:00Please don't misunderstand me, deck. I am argu...Please don't misunderstand me, deck. I am arguing that in <i>this</i> country, we need to ensure a greater separation of church and State. What Muslims do in their own countries to combine them cannot be done here, as I pointed out. My proposal would make Muslims in this country not only subject to the secular civil authorities, but also to their own <i>and other</i> religions when it comes to deciding to locate a new mosque. Given that they would have similar voting power, I don't think the council could be regarded as a restraint on their right to freely exercise their religion -- any more than are the thousand other already existing zoning, architectural and similar limitations on their right to build.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-69297521649929670862010-08-19T10:44:29.454-07:002010-08-19T10:44:29.454-07:00To some degree I can agree with your evaluation of...To some degree I can agree with your evaluation of civil unions and holy matrimony.<br /><br />When you bring up the Ground Zero Mosque, I have to disagree. Even moderate Islam cannot separate religon and state. For most Muslims, the state must be synchronized with Islamic religious law. The desire to erect this mosque is to create a monument to a battle triumph.BillBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17593147581583316765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-16664697950281049212010-08-19T08:11:14.500-07:002010-08-19T08:11:14.500-07:00The seductive sophistry of the revisionists of man...The seductive sophistry of the revisionists of many persuasions.....the Curmudgeon has struck again !<br /><br />Particularly liked the inclusion of the Louis Crew via Barbara Harris rationale concerning marriage almost verbatim from Harris's "eucharist" pitch[fork] at the TEC convention last summer.<br /><br />Magnificent spoof !!!bluebird272https://www.blogger.com/profile/01138572507411756160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42733441513268609672010-08-19T06:18:08.783-07:002010-08-19T06:18:08.783-07:00I think that religion and secular political affair...I think that religion and secular political affairs should not mix, except though morals. Morals come, for most people, through religion and government is the enforcement of common morals. Not eating pork is not a common moral, but not stealing is a common moral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-9735665910061308872010-08-19T05:09:35.639-07:002010-08-19T05:09:35.639-07:00In order to promote pansexuality (the exercise of ...In order to promote pansexuality (the exercise of the alphabet of sexual behaviors recommended by Gene Robinson) as a merely alternative lifestyle (without negative consequence to spirit, soul, body, relationships and child-rearing), factual evidence of the negative outcome of such behaviors in secular science, mental and medical clinical practice, CDC, social work and police statistics has had to be intentionally denied, distorted and/or hidden.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-8135580143689913382010-08-18T23:21:25.873-07:002010-08-18T23:21:25.873-07:00John, again, my views are completely in accord wit...John, again, my views are completely in accord with yours. But we have to recognize that a secular civil society balks at being handed religious dictates, no matter how well-intentioned, but based on evidence which they refuse to acknowledge. I think that those of us who are religious would do well to stop trying to save the entirety of the society in which we find ourselves, and instead to concentrate our efforts on where it will do the most good -- starting with our own churches.<br /><br />The current strife is gaining Christians no secular ground. That is a fact with which we must come to terms. It most emphatically does <b>not</b> mean that we must give up on trying to convince others. But the best atmosphere in which to accomplish that is one in which those others feel no compulsion, or coercion, from circumstances over which they think they have no control.<br /><br />The paradox of the drowning person applies fully here. They perceive that they are drowning with no hope of rescue or salvation, so they are not averse to dragging you, their rescuer, down with them. But if you can get the message through that their salvation lies not in whatever efforts you can bring to bear on their behalf, but rather in accepting the fate which they face, with trust in the faith of Christ, then and only then might they pull aside enough from their own self-involvement to see that "rescue" involves a form of accepting surrender to Christ's love -- of which they are fully capable, <i>because</i> of the sacrifice which He made for them to begin with -- before they ever found themselves in peril.<br /><br />There is no other way which I can see. Society can define civil union to suit the majority's views, but if those views go against what religion teaches, then society is all on its own, and it will need all the luck it can muster. If, instead, members of the society see the wisdom in adopting and putting into practice what religion teaches (but does not compel, for non-believers), then it will be out of a genuine conviction that they are doing what is best for their own individual advancement (and ultimate salvation, though society collectively can have nothing to do with that, except to try to stay out of the way).<br /><br />So much comes down to individual responsibility. There can be no repose in what others are choosing to do, unless it agrees with the principles of faith which <b>you</b> on your own can identify.<br /><br />That is why abortion is also a denial of the faith of Christ, embodied in His ultimate sacrifice. <br />There is not, and could never be, a socially defensible position in favor of abortion. Yet we see the society around us sanction it time and time again. To do so, they must deny both Christ's sacrifice for them, and His teachings. There is no greater folly of which mankind is capable, while it blithely goes on, killing its own.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-48181436232464666202010-08-18T21:21:25.653-07:002010-08-18T21:21:25.653-07:00If the only concern about homosexual marriage were...If the only concern about homosexual marriage were that it is immoral under a set of somewhat arbitrary religious strictures (like eating pork), I would agree with the approach of separating church and state on this subject. However, the historical evidence indicates that the acceptance of homosexual marriage by a society is devastating to that society. I know of no societies that have left a historical record and have accepted homosexual marriage. (Perhaps you know of more history than I.) Given that we are certainly not the first society to come up with this innovation, the lack of evidence that it has ever been implemented effectively in a surviving society is very frightening. It is rather reminiscent of eating dynamite with a lighted fuse. I know of no one who can tell me from their personal experience that it is a bad idea. However, I am not about to try it. (Seriously, I suspect that there is more sociological wisdom in Romans 1 than most of us realize. See "Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin, Oxford University Press, 1934 for some really frightening historical analysis on this general subject.)Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09040121872640933410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-45775706268599522462010-08-18T18:20:09.592-07:002010-08-18T18:20:09.592-07:00Mark Brown, I do not disagree. Nor did I suggest a...Mark Brown, I do not disagree. Nor did I suggest a one-size fits all solution to civil unions: each State should be able to decide for itself on the appropriate criteria for State-sanctioned unions, as they traditionally have done. But setting it up on the basis I have suggested would remove the objection from certain quarters that religions are dictating decisions which ought to be purely political. Again, if we don't start separating religion from politics, we are headed for a lot more strife and division.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-15560328736563726012010-08-18T17:05:21.288-07:002010-08-18T17:05:21.288-07:00I would submit that the justification for state-sa...I would submit that the justification for state-sanctioned marriage is to give the married person special rights in their spouse's property to encourage them to (i) sacrifice some of their earning potential for the purpose of investing more time in their children and (ii) stay in the marriage. Both factors help children become more capable, well-adjusted, and productive adults and better citizens.<br /><br />These special property rights and the "married" status to which they are tied should be available only to couples who are responsible and loving enough to be willing to give their newborns a mommy and a daddy. "Gay" couples are not willing to give babies a mommy and a daddy, and for that reason do not merit state-sanctioned marriage and should not be allowed to raise babies or acquire babies through surrogates or artificial insemination. The premeditated intent to deny children a mommy and daddy is child abuse. Since such premeditated intent inheres in any same-sex application for a marriage license, the "best interest of the child" (if not society) mandates that all such applications be denied.<br /><br />Mark A. Brown<br />San Angelo, Texas<br />August 18, 2010Mark Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169937442115690817noreply@blogger.com