Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Miss California: "God was testing me"

"This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself." -- Carrie Prejean
Miss California Carrie Prejean, 21, stayed true to herself and her principles at the Miss USA Pageant held over the weekend when a judge, Perez Hilton, asked if she believed in gay marriage, according to The Fox Nation.

It reminds me of those bracelets that say, "WWJD" ... "What Would Jesus Do." We all know what we'd like to do when tested ... the real test is when we are actually confronted with it and how we respond. Ms. Prejean's answer to what many think was a set-up question:
"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
When someone suggested her answer may have cost her the crown (she came in second place), she responded:
"... you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything."
And what of Perez Hilton? Apparently a well-known openly-gay celebrity gossip blogger (I had never heard of him), he went on a video rant on his blog after the Miss USA Contest and slammed Ms. Prejean:
“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!”
That's classy.

Note to Miss USA Pageant: Find a less controversial judge. Note to Ms. Prejean: You passed the test.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

it still amazes me how christians fill their mouth with talks about gay marriage and how homosexuals are going to hell blah blah blah. The Bible talks a lot more about divorce and I don't see anyone picketing Divorce Court! This is the reason why people don't go to church anymore, because its full of HYPOCRITES with DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Puritan Lad said...

Anonymous,

This is a strange non-sequitur. Not only that, but it exposes your ignorance of the Bible. What does the Bible say about divorce? You didn't bother to tell us that. Are you aware that Jesus allows for divorce in some circumstances?

In any case, your argument, if valid, would mean that Christians are wrong on divorce, not gay marriage.

Yes, there are hypocrites in the Christian church. They are often used to soothe the seered consciences of non-churchgoers. And if that hypocrite ends up in the same Hell as the homosexual, of what benefit would that be to you?

Might I suggest that you read teh Bible before making strange and irrational arguments about its contents.

Peglegged Picador said...

i've come around on the gay marriage thing over the past five years or so. the main reason (other than the fact that i have a hard time telling people who they should or shouldn't love) is that i really fail to see any reasonable/logical arguments against it. i think this is a good example. her justification for her position is that she was raised to believe that it's wrong. not that she feels there are legitimate objections that can be clearly articulated, but rather just that a negative perception of homosexuality has been engrained through her upbringing. i'll stop short of drawing comparisons to ridiculous beliefs of the not too distant past, but i think the similarities are evident.

so, i agree that perez hilton is wrong (and probably should have been more constructive in his comments if he'd like the same courtesy from those who disagree with him).

but,

she did not lose because she's anti gay marriage. had she gotten up and made a rational case against gay marriage (as i haven't heard the brightest minds on our side do this, i think that's a lot to ask from a beauty queen), rather than presenting the 'i carry the prejudice of my parent's generation' (my interpretation) clap trap that she did, i think she could have pulled it out.

i'm interested in your take.

Puritan Lad said...

Seth,

Here is the rational argument against gay marriage.

1.) Homosexuality is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

2.) The Civil Government is ordained by God to reward good and punish evil (abominations). (Romans 13:1-4)

3.) Therefore, the civil government should punish homosexual offenders (not marry them). Most states have antisodomy laws already on the books.

You wrote, "the main reason (other than the fact that i have a hard time telling people who they should or shouldn't love) is that i really fail to see any reasonable/logical arguments against it." That's not a reason for gay marriage. Can you give a reasonable/logical argument in favor of it?

Peglegged Picador said...

sure,
there are a ton of people who live in relationships that are just as stable and loving as the 'norm' but they're treated as second class citizens through the denial of some pretty essential things in our society. i can get on board with debating what we call it, but those who maintain that we should deny things like health care and benefits of estate law will eventually be placed in the same category as bigots of days gone by.

and a quick note on rationality....

i appreciate your faith. i think that if it helps you live a happier and more complete life then it is a wonderful thing.

however,
by it's very nature it is not rational. it can't be. that's the point of faith, no?

so, it would serve you well to make an effort to recognize which of your beliefs are based in faith and which ones have a grounding in solid logic. stating that homosexuality is an abomination because leviticus says so falls into the category of the former. as such, it doesn't have a place in an intelligent/rational conversation about how we get toa point where we treat homosexuals as equal in our society, regardless of our concerns of what they do with their genitalia.

Brooke said...

In my mind, not only did she come across as wishy-washy (she says she's glad we live in a place where people have the choice of gay marriage and straight marriage and then turned right around and seemed to say she didn't think people SHOULD have the choice), but the question wasn't what do you think of gay marriage, but whether or not she thought other states would/should follow suit and allow it legally. Two entirely different questions.

I am spiritually opposed to gay marriage, because of my religious beliefs, but I also think the government shouldn't be the business of enforcing my religious beliefs on other people. I think the government should get out of the marriage and marriage defining business altogether and that government santioned "marriage" should be replaced with civil contracts that can be entered into by any two consenting adults, for any reason. I think marriage should be relegated to the realm of the private sector, and the clergy (or officiant) of one's choice.

And in the meantime, isf we Christians cotton-pickin' worried about the state of marriage in our country, we need to stop harping about the gay community, and start looking minding our own marriages. Lead by example, and, like Peter cautions us, be prepared to give account of our bliefs with *gentleness* and *respect*. Tacking on "no offense" does not qualify as "respect."

Personally our marriage rates, even among professing Christians, are *abysmal* and most of us, statistically have NO room to be talking about the sanctity of anything, much less restricting the civil rights of others over it.

Brooke said...

Here's the exact exchange, just so you can see what I meant by wishy-washy...

PEREZ: Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

CARRIE: I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

Puritan Lad said...

Woah Sean, If you really believe what you wrote, then you have lots of explaining to do.

What about the Indian Girl who married a stray dog? Would you defend this as a normal relationship? Should the dog be able to visit the girl in the hospital? SHould the dog inherit the girl's estate?

You are also creating a false dichotomy by throwing in "health care and benefits of estate laws". That's a crock. No one i sbeing denied healthcare on such basis, and a person can leave his or her estate to anyone they wish via a last will and testament. Noce try though.

You also stated that faith "by it's very nature it is not rational. it can't be. that's the point of faith, no?". Again, this is nonsense. Without God, there can be no rationality, since God is the precondition of human intellect and the ability to obtain knowledge. Arguing for rationality (or in yur case, morality) without God is itself irrational, since without God we are left with humans (and their brains) being nothing more than a bunch of biocarbons thrown together in a huge cosmic accident. Second class citizens indeed.

You concluded by suggesting that I "make an effort to recognize which of your beliefs are based in faith and which ones have a grounding in solid logic". Not only have you drawn a false dichotomy between faith and logic, you assumed that sound logic can exist without God (which you will have to prove). You then expressed your desire to "...have a place in an intelligent/rational conversation about how we get to a point where we treat homosexuals as equal in our society, regardless of our concerns of what they do with their genitalia." You again are begging the question about intelligence and human rationality, and merely assumed that homosexuality is normal. You have not proven this, nor have you made any logical case for allowing gay marriage.

In short, you have...

1.) Assumed that homosexuality is normal.
2.) Assumed that morality, logic, and human intelligence can have any significance apart from God.
3.) Your position isn't based on faith (it is).
4.) Civil Governments should ordain gay marriage.

You'll have to prove these things rather than assume them. I'll be awaiting the defense of your position.

Puritan Lad said...

Brooke,

You said that you are "spiritually opposed to gay marriage, because of my religious beliefs". What religious beliefs woud that be, and does your religious belief have anything to say about the role of civil government. You quoted Peter to be prepared to give an account of our beliefs. DO you also agree with Peter that civil governments are "sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. (1 Peter 2:14)? What is good and evil, and how is it defined?

You have made two errors that many Christians make. First, you have assumed that a position of neutrality exists. You said that "I think the government should get out of the marriage and marriage defining business altogether and that government santioned "marriage". To not sanction marriage between one man and one woman is to allow gay marriage. There is no middle ground, and flies right in the face of the Biblical role of civil government.

Second, you have assume that imperfect people have no right to make moral judgements. Wouldn't that be sad if it were true. I once told a lie, so I have no right to say that what Hitler did was wrong. Really? Just because Christians fail to honor their own marriage vows does not justify changing what a marriage is.

(And marriage is not a "civil right".)

Peglegged Picador said...

ok crazy, nevermind.

you guys keep losing elections your way (over things that really don't matter).

i'm going to do what i can to move the party forward.

Peglegged Picador said...

and for the record,
it's completely irrational to believe a man (or deity) was crucified, dead for three days and then resurrected.

it takes a lot of faith (i.e. believing in what cannot be proven) to believe something like that.

i don't say that as a criticism of folks who believe it, just as a a point of order.

Puritan Lad said...

So much for a logical/rational argument huh?

If I wanted to adopt Democratic policies just to win elections, I'd be a Democrat. If that is what you mean by "moving the party forward, I'd say "No Thanks".

Besides, gay marriage was not the reason we lost the election, since an overwhelming majority of voters are against gay marriage (which is why the courts have to constantly overturn the vote of the people.)

Brooke said...

I do believe that God sovereignly ordains governments to rule over people, but that also includes leaders and governments that do things we disagree with, or even things that we consider wrong.

By your own logic, God ordained the corrupt Roman government that killed Christians and engaged in all sorts of immorality. And yet, they were told to submit to the governing authorities - which would have included emperors like Nero. Your position seems to ignore that patently, as though the only sort of Government God has had a hand in establishing is nice "moral" Christian governments.

Furthermore, you will also note a decided lack of God telling us to seek political positions of power, or to force our religious beliefs on others in the form of law. You will, however, note Paul clearly stating that grace is what saves people, not laws. So not only are we NOT told to seek to form Christian governments and enforce Christian ideals through rule of law, we are told that rule of law is not what will redeem, but grace through faith in Christ. So your whole premise that we are somehow to use legislation as some sort of whacked out evangelism tool is quite unScriptural.

What we ARE told to do to live I Corinthians 13 (which includes not being rude, arrogant, or demanding our own way), we are told to live our beliefs, and as I said before, to share the truth we have BUT being careful to do so with gentleness and respect.

I see very little of that in the people who rail against the homosexual community. I see a lot of pontification about sanctity, and very little grace and love.

Marriage (or civil unions, as I think they should be, from a legal standpoint) between consenting adults absolutely should be a civil right. That's why laws banning mixed race marriages were overturned - they were a violation of civil rights.

I'm not saying people can't ever say something's wrong if they're not perfect, but Christ was pretty clear about making sure one has the log out of their own eye before trying to picking at the speck in their neighbor's.

By the way, the soundness of one's argument is usually inversely proportionate to the amount of time it takes them to play the Hitler card. ;-)

Puritan Lad said...

Seth,

A "logical" discussion requires logic, and you have yet to use any, only assertions. You have yet to prove anything that you've said. You stated that "it's completely irrational to believe a man (or deity) was crucified, dead for three days and then resurrected". You have given no justification for this statement, but merely asserted it to be irrational. See my defense of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You stated that "it takes a lot of faith (i.e. believing in what cannot be proven) to believe something like that." Your definition of "faith" is extremely flawed. The resurrection has been proven by many evidences, which you will find in the aforementioned article. The problem you have isn't a lack of proof, for you have the same proof I have. The problem you have is that you have assumed that God does not exist, therefore Christ could not have risen from the dead.

But you fail to acknowledge your own metaphysical presuppositions. You make moral judgments, logical statements (and fallacies), and so forth, without any evidence whatsoever. You have yet to give any logical reason ahy gay marriage should be allowed, which is the main argument here. You believe in many things that you have not proven, but we'll get more into that as this discussion moves on.

In the end, you state that "i don't say that as a criticism of folks who believe it, just as a a point of order." What order Seth? On what basis will you deny the resurrection? On what basis will you defend gay marriage, human "rights", etc. And on what basis will you refer to those who oppose gay marriage as "bigots".

It's time to answer a few questions Seth. You wanted a logical/rational discussion, but so far have only provided empty assertions.

Puritan Lad said...

Brooke,

You are correct that God ordained the corrupt Roman government that killed Christians and engaged in all sorts of immorality. Even those who killed Christ did nothing but "what the hand and counsel of God had decreed" (Acts 4:27-28). This is affirmed by Peter, that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23). Yes, we are to submit to governing authorities, like we are doing now (Obama), but that doesn't mean that we don't address their immorality.

You are quite mistake when you suggest that we should not force our religious beliefs on others in the form of law. In fact, you really don't believe this either. Should civil governments allow murder? Assault and Battery? What kind of laws should governments pass? Do they have a blank check?

John the Baptist countered King Herod's immorality, telling him that it was unlawful for him to have his brother's wife. Whose law was being violated, Herod's or God's? Jesus told us to make disciples OF all nations, teaching them to observe ALL things that He commanded us. That means that Christians should oppose gay marriage, at the very least. Otherwise, or profession of faith is like tasteless salt, worthless.

You are correct in stating that grace is what saves people, not laws. This is not the issue. The law cannot save, but it is to be used to restrain evil. The question isn't whether or not civil governments should pass moral laws, but rather what standard should be used to pass laws.

You falsely claim that "your whole premise that we are somehow to use legislation as some sort of whacked out evangelism tool is quite unScriptural." This isn't about legislating evangelism, but about lawlessness in government.

You said that "Marriage (or civil unions, as I think they should be, from a legal standpoint) between consenting adults absolutely should be a civil right." You need to make up your mind. Is marriage a civil (government) right, or should "government should get out of the marriage and marriage defining business altogether". It is one or the other. Either Civil goverments oversee marriage or they don't, and if they don't then it isn't a civil right.

You wrote, "By the way, the soundness of one's argument is usually inversely proportionate to the amount of time it takes them to play the Hitler card. ;-)". You dodged the question, but you did acknowledge my point on that.

Time for supper. More tomorrow.

Brooke said...

To me there is a difference between murder and gay civil unions. Any time someone is depriving someone of a right, we need to step in. Theft, murder, libel, slander, kidnapping/false imprisonment.

And on most of those things there is an almost GLOBAL consensus, regardless of religious belief. Our laws are not based on a single religious system of belief, but on consensus. And in a pluralistic society, such as ours is, we need that consensus.

Gay marriage deprives no one of any right. While one can argue that it could cause spiritual harm to the participants, we don't base laws on what we believe causes spiritual harm.

And besides, just how far are you willing to go to "constrain evil" as defined by your religious beliefs? Outlaw books that contain ideas you disagree with? Make other religions illegal? Outlaw divorce for anything other than infidelity? Outlaw anything that could cause a man to look on a woman in lust (bathing suits, skimpy outfits). Just how much DO you want to create an American Christian version of the Taliban?

You can define marriage however you want, and the "value" of our marriages is ONLY defined by the people involved in those marriages. I don't think we have the LEGAL right, NOR the SPIRITUAL mandate to tell two consenting adults that they cannot enter into a legally binding union with one another. Period.

I say "marriage" is a civil right, because currently, that is what the government recognizes - marriage - in order to get certain other legal rights as couples. My take is that those legal rights need not be assigned to "marriage" but to "civil unions", thus taking out any need to define "marriage." But, regardless of what the official government term happens to be, a legally binding contract (whether termed marriage or civil union) that bestows the rights *currently* consigned to the term "marriage," should be a civil right of any two consenting adults, and no matter what you, I, or anyone else believes is the true definition of marriage, we do not have the right to deny that of other people.

And Seth is right - if you consider yourself a supporter of the right-wing, you do your party a huge disservice by choosing this hill to die on.

If more Christians spent less time pontificating on what they think the "big" sins are, and seeking to legislate away those (while turning a blind eye to the myriad other moral dilemmas facing our country), and spent more time simply LIVING it out, in boldness, but tempered with love, gentleness and respect, I think far more would be accomplished for the Kingdom of God. Stop placing so much emphasis on the fallen political kingdoms of this world.

Brooke said...

I did not dodge your question.

I am quite sure I pointed out that while we can differentiate between good and evil, even as fallen human beings, that Christ, quite clearly, tells us to get the LOG out of our own eye before we try to pick out the speck in our neighbor's. I think I addressed your point rather clearly.

Puritan Lad said...

Brooke: "To me there is a difference between murder and gay civil unions. Any time someone is depriving someone of a right, we need to step in. Theft, murder, libel, slander, kidnapping/false imprisonment."

Response: What is a "right", and where does if come from?

Brooke: "And on most of those things there is an almost GLOBAL consensus, regardless of religious belief. Our laws are not based on a single religious system of belief, but on consensus."

Response: Not so. Our laws are founded on "the laws of nature and nature's God" (Declaration of Independence), that clearly being the Christian God from William Blackstone's exposition on Leviticus.

Brooke: "And in a pluralistic society, such as ours is, we need that consensus."

Response: We already have a consensus that says that gay marriage is wrong, so why would you go against the consensus? Besides, if moral laws were based on a consensus, then it would be impossible for a majority opinion to be wrong. Surely you don't believe this.

Brooke: Gay marriage deprives no one of any right. While one can argue that it could cause spiritual harm to the participants, we don't base laws on what we believe causes spiritual harm.

Response: It causes more than spiritual harm. It causes physical harm (AIDS) and brings the judgment of God upon a nation. Just as Sodom and Gemorrah.

Brooke: "And besides, just how far are you willing to go to "constrain evil" as defined by your religious beliefs? Outlaw books that contain ideas you disagree with? Make other religions illegal? Outlaw divorce for anything other than infidelity? Outlaw anything that could cause a man to look on a woman in lust (bathing suits, skimpy outfits). Just how much DO you want to create an American Christian version of the Taliban?"

Response: That's an odd question coming from a Christian. Are you suggesting that God's laws are no better than the Talibans?

Brooke: You can define marriage however you want, and the "value" of our marriages is ONLY defined by the people involved in those marriages. I don't think we have the LEGAL right, NOR the SPIRITUAL mandate to tell two consenting adults that they cannot enter into a legally binding union with one another. Period.

Response: What is a "legal right"? God has every right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot enter into a legally binding union with one another.

Brooke: "I say "marriage" is a civil right, because currently, that is what the government recognizes - marriage - in order to get certain other legal rights as couples. My take is that those legal rights need not be assigned to "marriage" but to "civil unions", thus taking out any need to define "marriage."

Response: Sorry, but that is a distinction without a difference. Civil Unions = Gay Marriage. Both should be outlawed. And you still haven't explained whay "legal rights" are. I need to know what standard you want civil governments should judge by.

Brooke: "But, regardless of what the official government term happens to be, a legally binding contract (whether termed marriage or civil union) that bestows the rights *currently* consigned to the term "marriage," should be a civil right of any two consenting adults, and no matter what you, I, or anyone else believes is the true definition of marriage, we do not have the right to deny that of other people."

Response: I'm well aware of your and Seth's position. I have yet to see any justification for it. Why should " rights *currently* consigned to the term "marriage," should be a civil right of any two consenting adults"? Sorry, but consenting adults are not the highest authority. If you disagree, I'm going to have to ask you to prove this.

Brooke: And Seth is right - if you consider yourself a supporter of the right-wing, you do your party a huge disservice by choosing this hill to die on.

Response: I'm not interested in supporting any movement that sanctions sodomy as a valid relationship. I answer to a Higher Authority. Besides. we already tried a "right-wing" candidate of your stripe, and look what it got us.

Brooke: "If more Christians spent less time pontificating on what they think the "big" sins are, and seeking to legislate away those (while turning a blind eye to the myriad other moral dilemmas facing our country), and spent more time simply LIVING it out, in boldness, but tempered with love, gentleness and respect, I think far more would be accomplished for the Kingdom of God. Stop placing so much emphasis on the fallen political kingdoms of this world."

Response: You have made a false dichotomy between sins. If you agree that sodomy is sin, why would you want the state to sanction it? It is the job of the Christian to redeem "the fallen political kingdoms of this world". Boy, the "Rapture Theology" has sure made the church impotent.

Brooke: "I am quite sure I pointed out that while we can differentiate between good and evil, even as fallen human beings, that Christ, quite clearly, tells us to get the LOG out of our own eye before we try to pick out the speck in our neighbor's. I think I addressed your point rather clearly."

Response: "Apparently there are millions who cannot differentiate between good and evil, which is why we murder babies and sancation homosexual perversion".

I have yet to see a valid reason to support homosexual marriage. It is understandable that a non-beleiver like Seth would do so, but he has no moral ground to stand on. It is quite disturbing, however, to have professing Christians view do so, who say they believe the Word of God, yet call for a "pluralistic" society (whatever that is) and compare His laws to the Taliban.

And you still haven't told me the proper role for civil government.

Glenda said...

I would like to correct a statement made earlier by Puritan Lad. He said that most states had anti-sodomy laws on the books. Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court found that such sodomy laws were unconstitutional in the summer of 2003. I believe it was based on a privacy argument. Just sayin'.

Brooke said...

Puritan (if that is, in fact, your real name. LOL), there is a world of difference between "supporting homosexual marriage" and believing that something is wrong, but it's not something that I have the right to legislate between two consenting adults.

I don't "support" gay marriage any more than I support pornography, divorce for "irreconcilable differences", or any other thing that I have moral and spiritual qualm over, but believe people have the right to decide on for themselves.

Allowing things to remain individual choices is not the same as saying they are ok, or supporting them. I believe the VAST majority of divorces are wrong, but we still allow people to divorce for whatever reason they see fit. I believe that porn objectifies women and causes men and women to sin, at the very least, by lusting, BUT I still believe that as long as those making and consuming pornography are of legal age, that it is their right to do so.

I believe God's laws are pure and right, but I also think Christians, as a whole, do an awful lot of picking and choosing over which ones we think need legislating. We have a glaring tendency to single out the things we don't struggle with, or the ones we don't want anyone to know we struggle with, from what I've seen. The rest we politely ignore. I mean, gluttony is a deadly sin, and look at how THAT is destroying our nation, and yet, I've never seen the religious right picketing a buffet, which would be to gluttony what a strip club is to lust. Heck, more on point, we have Miss California talking about how she cannot compromise her principles EVER, and yet, she apparently had no problem with choosing a bikini that left, almost assuredly, will cause her brothers to stumble and lust. I found that a little odd and more than a bit contradictory.

I think there's a difference between respecting and living according to the Word of God, which we are called to do, and trying to force it on others through rule of law, which we are NOT.

The role of civil government, especially in a secular, pluralistic society (which we have had for over a century) is to keep the peace, protect it's citizens from harm from enemies, to preserve individuals basic freedoms and rights (life, liberty, etc.), and to provide for the general welfare of it's people. Now, that gets broader when you look at things like how to accomplish those things, but that's the general jist.

And yes, God uses governments however He sees fit - even working through corrupt, fallen governments to achieve His eternal purposes. Even if we don't understand those purposes in this lifetime. However, to oversimplify and somehow turn that into God mandating us to seek political power so we can somehow enforce a select few of His laws (again, OFTEN the ones we don't think we'll have a problem with), is a gross misrepresentation of Scripture and what God says about government.

Put your faith in God to change things - not the government and fallen political systems of the world. Put your time and energy into LIVING the Gospel, and sharing it in true love and compassion for others, and spend less time pointing out which sins you think are worse than your own - so bad, in fact, that you think they warrant legislating. Befriend a homosexual and, without the ulterior motive of solely wanting to convert them somehow, show them the GENUINE love and compassion of Christ.

We are called to relational ministry with the world. Stop relying on the government to accomplish that for you. While God does ordain government, it is NOT what he's going to use to establish His Kingdom (which is NOT of this world), so stop trying to use it to that end.

With that, I really think you and I have taken this conversation about as far as it can go, and both made our positions abundantly clear, so I will bow out now.

Peglegged Picador said...

"Our laws are founded on "the laws of nature and nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)."

perhaps.
it might be important to note that the man that wrote that declaration went through your bible with a pair of scissors, eliminating the parts he found to be supernatural or misinterpreted.

that is to say, he probably wouldn't have thought the 'evidence' in the bible (which insofar as i can tell is the basis for most of your 'well reasoned' points) held much water either.

if you're looking for a text that contains the direct word of god, might i suggest checking out the koran. my understanding is that book came directly from the man himself, in his own language.

Puritan Lad said...

Brooke,

For the record, pornography should be illegal as well, but we are on a different sin and subject.

As far as "putting faith in God to change things", you are drawing another false dichotomy. God ordains the ends, and he also ordains the means. Part of "relational ministry with the world" includes teaching them to observe all things Christ commanded us, and that includes God's commandments for cilvil governments. Your "other-world only" view of Christianity is irrational and unhealthy. For we are commanded to be light and salt to this world, or else we are worth nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.

You wrote "The role of civil government, especially in a secular, pluralistic society (which we have had for over a century) is to keep the peace, protect it's citizens from harm from enemies, to preserve individuals basic freedoms and rights (life, liberty, etc.), and to provide for the general welfare of it's people". Is that an arbitrary role that you decided for yourself? What basic freedoms and rights? The ones that you listed were endowed by our Creator (The Christian God). In a "secular society" there is no such thing as rights.

Glenda,

Most states still have these laws on their books, they are just not enforced. (And another example of the Supreme Court making up it's own laws).

Seth,

You must have had a public education. I feel sorry for you. The "Jefferson Bible" that you are referring to was not a Bible, nor was it ever meant to be one. It was a book of ethics written to American Indians.

The Koran was written by a pedophile, rapist, and terrorist (and false prophet) named Mohammed. Try Again.

Now Brooke (if you want to bow out) and Seth, you keep trying to change the subject by inserting things like pornography and false religions like Islam. Please answer my questions. What defense will you give of gay marriage? I have yet to hear one. How do you account for things like morality, logic, and reason in an atheistic (secular) world?