Lincoln, Darwin and Gay Marriage

[The Unknown Gomer]

I was looking up a law firm address via google, but this caught my eye in my google news homepage so I had to make a pitstop to read it first.

Interesting blog post, it's by a rabbi...

Of particular interest, I thought, was the line that says "anyone...who uses sacred teachings to justify their position, whatever it may be, remembers that having a verse to lean on never guarantees that God is leaning your way."

Also had no idea that "Darwin was a religious man who saw his science as bringing glory to the God in whom he believed." Whoda thunk it?

Anyhoo, here it is...

Thursday (Feb. 12) we will celebrate the 200th birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. The parallels in their lives provide valuable insight for the Presbyterian Church USA, which embarks this week on a major process of inquiry into the place of gay marriage and civil unions in the church and in the country.

The parallels in Lincoln's and Darwin's lives are also useful for the rest of a nation, which remains as bitterly divided over issues of homosexuality as we are about creation and evolution, and as we once were over human slavery. Lincoln and Darwin were two great men whose visions and life work ultimately served humanity but polarized people enormously.

Lincoln was right, both about the need to come together as a single nation and not just a collection of states, and about the need to end slavery. But he took America, perhaps needlessly, into the bloodiest war we ever fought and only arrived at his views about the evils of slavery late in the game.

Darwin was right, too. At the very least, he developed an approach about how life grows and differentiates that inspired generations of cutting-edge scientific inquiries. But, like Lincoln, his views created a bloody cultural war in which we remain fully engaged.

Both Lincoln and Darwin were much more complex than the sides that celebrate them and their legacies often admit. The truth is Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the Union than with freeing the slaves, and Darwin was a religious man who saw his science as bringing glory to the God in whom he believed. That kind of complexity bordering on contradiction would serve us well as we continue to thrash out the place of gay marriage and civil unions in this country.

While it would be wrong to ask those with strongly held views about gay marriage and/or civil unions to simply give up on their ideas, I do wonder if they think the kind of ugliness the battles we engage when it comes to these issues will be seen as any less ugly than the battles in other wars, military or cultural, which we have fought in the past.

Of course, there is no moral equivalence between creationists and supporters of human slavery, but it is worth noting that in each case, people used/use religion and scriptural passages to justify their beliefs. I hope that both those in the PCUSA and anyone else who uses sacred teachings to justify their position, whatever it may be, remembers that having a verse to lean on never guarantees that God is leaning your way.

It would be helpful in addressing today's culture wars if both creationists and those who oppose any recognition of the potential sacredness of a committed, monogamous, same sex relationship, without betraying their beliefs, approached these issues with greater humility. It's worth remembering that like those who used the bible to support slavery, they might one day look back, if not with shame, at least with regret over their understanding of God's word....and so might those who support such marriages and unions. If we treated each other with that awareness, whichever we go, will get there together and be the better for it as a nation.

[Jason]

"The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism." - Reinhold Niebuhr

[Evanescence]

some rumors claim Lincoln had a male friend that shared affections with...

Could be...kinda like the Jefferson family secret of children fathered to Thomas Jefferson's slave...

[rossid]

The February National Geographic was in the psychiatrist's office yesterday. PM me with your bipolar jokes. ;)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.co m/2009/02/darwin-legacy/ridley-text

This really chapped me off:

"modern Darwins don't have to guess. They consult genetic scripture."

SCRIPTURE?!?!?!

P.S. E - I guess that wolf(?) is for you. :D


.

[Jesuslove]

some rumors claim Lincoln had a male friend that shared affections with...

Could be...kinda like the Jefferson family secret of children fathered to Thomas Jefferson's slave...

I read somewhere that Lincoln often shared his bed with another man. It has been widely speculated as to whether this other man was a friend, or more than a friend.

[Jesuslove]

"The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Amen! That's why there should be a clear separation of church and state.

[Sam!]

I read somewhere that Lincoln often shared his bed with another man. It has been widely speculated as to whether this other man was a friend, or more than a friend.
You read it somewhere?

[Sam!]

Amen! That's why there should be a clear separation of church and state.
Why? Maryland had a formal state church until 1832 I believe. As recently as the 50's (I think - don't have my notes handy) the Supreme Court was saying things like "polygamy violates the judeo-christian principles of marriage." This fanatical eradication of Christianity from government is relatively new to the United States.

[Jesuslove]

You read it somewhere?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f05e5d 61439f93aa35752c0a9639c8b 63

[rossid]

Written by the late gay activist C.A. Tripp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/107koqzy.asp

[Jesuslove]

Written by the late gay activist C.A. Tripp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/107koqzy.asp

So you're saying that the Weekly Standard is less biased than the New York Times, and since the book was written by a gay author, it must be a lie?

[cheewiee]

You want to speculate that a guy who lived over 100 years ago had a gay liason, when there is no conclusive proof....

go ahead... good luck with that....

[VerbumReale]

Amen! That's why there should be a clear separation of church and state.



And I hope you would agree that applies equally to Jeremiah Wright as it does to John Hagee.

[Jesuslove]

And I hope you would agree that applies equally to Jeremiah Wright as it does to John Hagee.

absolutely!

[Debbie]

some rumors claim Lincoln had a male friend that shared affections with...

Could be...kinda like the Jefferson family secret of children fathered to Thomas Jefferson's slave...

The Three Stooges also shared a bed, but what does that mean?

[Debbie]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f05e5d 61439f93aa35752c0a9639c8b 63

I don't buy it! I would have to see the writings of the times with my own eyes to even make me think this could have been remotely possible.

Poor Mary Todd, if they had only known then the effects of PMS then that they do today, she'd of gotten more respect and compassion. Amazing what a banana and a few vitamins can do to help. Mary Todd's head was not messed up, her hormones were.

[Sam!]

So you're saying that the Weekly Standard is less biased than the New York Times, and since the book was written by a gay author, it must be a lie?
That's not what he said and your straw-man crap is getting old. This might shock you but nobody's bashing gay people in this thread!

When one is described as an "activist" then there is a clear bias or agenda. Therefore, everything one writes is subject to being viewed against that bias or agenda. Even if it is objective, there is a clear investment in the determination or outcome. If a "republican activist" wrote a bio on George W. that found no evidence of moral wrongdoing, would you find it credible?

[Jesuslove]

That's not what he said and your straw-man crap is getting old. This might shock you but nobody's bashing gay people in this thread!

When one is described as an "activist" then there is a clear bias or agenda. Therefore, everything one writes is subject to being viewed against that bias or agenda. Even if it is objective, there is a clear investment in the determination or outcome. If a "republican activist" wrote a bio on George W. that found no evidence of moral wrongdoing, would you find it credible?

No. I've never heard of anyone referred to as a Republican activist.... or a Democratic activist. Would a pro-lifer be considered an Abortion activist? Would a Christian be referred to as a Religious activist? Just because one has a viewpoint doesn't make that person an activist.

[Pouye]

No. I've never heard of anyone referred to as a Republican activist.... or a Democratic activist. Would a pro-lifer be considered an Abortion activist? Would a Christian be referred to as a Religious activist? Just because one has a viewpoint doesn't make that person an activist.

Actually, the term doesn't matter. A pro-lifer could be an anti-abortion activist, like Gianna Jessen. She is outspoken and writes about the subject. Your point is just because someone is gay it doesn't make them an "activist", but if a person is gay and they are outspoken and write about things that support the gay agenda, then there is nothing wrong with calling them a gay activist. But even if they aren't an official activist, their viewpoint will most likely be skewed by their own lifestyle.

Rock

[Sam!]

No. I've never heard of anyone referred to as a Republican activist.... or a Democratic activist. Would a pro-lifer be considered an Abortion activist? Would a Christian be referred to as a Religious activist? Just because one has a viewpoint doesn't make that person an activist.
That's not what I said. Go back and re-read it. If one is an activist, then everything they write or say has to be read and heard knowing that they have a clear bias. Being gay doesn't take away your credibility.

[Jesuslove]

That's not what I said. Go back and re-read it. If one is an activist, then everything they write or say has to be read and heard knowing that they have a clear bias. Being gay doesn't take away your credibility.

So Christian writers are Christian activists?

[Sam!]

I made a very specific statement that applies to people who are identified as activists. I did not say anything about who is or is not an activist - but I would say anyone who lobbies or writes on behalf of a group of people or movement specifically to improve the standing of that group in the eyes of society would generally be considered an activist. A gay man who doesn't care what anybody else thinks of his sexuality is not an activist. A lesbian woman who wants everybody else to think it's OK what she does, and labors significantly to cause other's opinion to change, would qualify as an activist. Does that clarify things for you?

Let me rephrase this whole discussion: peopel who have an agenda are, admittedly, biased! Therefore, their conclusions cannot be accepted without a lot of scrutiny, especially when they are self-serving!

[Jesuslove]

I made a very specific statement that applies to people who are identified as activists. I did not say anything about who is or is not an activist - but I would say anyone who lobbies or writes on behalf of a group of people or movement specifically to improve the standing of that group in the eyes of society would generally be considered an activist. A gay man who doesn't care what anybody else thinks of his sexuality is not an activist. A lesbian woman who wants everybody else to think it's OK what she does, and labors significantly to cause other's opinion to change, would qualify as an activist. Does that clarify things for you?

Let me rephrase this whole discussion: peopel who have an agenda are, admittedly, biased! Therefore, their conclusions cannot be accepted without a lot of scrutiny, especially when they are self-serving!


So you would not accept the conclusions of WND since they have an agenda? Would you automatically dismiss radical Christians for their views? Would you dismiss radical Jews who are pro-Israel? Should we automatically dismiss the views of political candidates as they have an agenda? I'm just looking for some clarification.

[Pouye]

So you would not accept the conclusions of WND since they have an agenda? Would you automatically dismiss radical Christians for their views? Would you dismiss radical Jews who are pro-Israel? Should we automatically dismiss the views of political candidates as they have an agenda? I'm just looking for some clarification.

"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil."
1 Thessalonians 5:21b

Everyone has an opinion and a point. Some people have strong agendas, some do not. Not every majority view is a balanced view, and sometimes the radical view is morally the right one (think of Jesus' viewpoint from the good Samaritan). views are never to be dismissed simply because the person with the view is tagged an activist or radical. However, everything should be tested and the best standard to test things by is the Bible as a whole (in my opinion and in the opinion of Paul and other New Testament and Old Testament writers).

Generally speaking, when weighing the evidence of anyone's agenda, if the evidence was taken before Jesus and the disciples and they would approve, then it is probably okay.

Rock

[Sam!]

So you would not accept the conclusions of WND since they have an agenda? Would you automatically dismiss radical Christians for their views? Would you dismiss radical Jews who are pro-Israel? Should we automatically dismiss the views of political candidates as they have an agenda? I'm just looking for some clarification.
I never suggested we dismiss anything (yet another straw man attack). Frankly, I do dismiss most of what comes out of WND, personally... but I filter out most of what comes from FNC, CNN, ABC, NBC and the gang.

When one person with an agenda writes a book about something which every respectable historian that I know disagrees with, and which can't be proved anyway, I am skeptical.

[rossid]

So you're saying that the Weekly Standard is less biased than the New York Times, and since the book was written by a gay author, it must be a lie?

No - more to follow.

Amen! That's why there should be a clear separation of church and state.

Where is that in the consitution? We know the separation does not exist in the founding documents of this country. A letter by Thomas Jefferson is NOT a founding document of this country.

And I hope you would agree that applies equally to Jeremiah Wright as it does to John Hagee.

Amen..

absolutely!

..and Amen.

That's not what he said and your straw-man crap is getting old. This might shock you but nobody's bashing gay people in this thread!

When one is described as an "activist" then there is a clear bias or agenda. Therefore, everything one writes is subject to being viewed against that bias or agenda. Even if it is objective, there is a clear investment in the determination or outcome. If a "republican activist" wrote a bio on George W. that found no evidence of moral wrongdoing, would you find it credible?

And this is what there was to follow. Straw man?

No. I've never heard of anyone referred to as a Republican activist.... or a Democratic activist. Would a pro-lifer be considered an Abortion activist? Would a Christian be referred to as a Religious activist? Just because one has a viewpoint doesn't make that person an activist.

Really? try google - http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2009/02/02/news/4_blackston_090202.txt and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9972641.html - well now you have..


Sorry I missed everyone elses replies. ;)