DISQUS

terenceweldon · 1 month ago

I'm not even going to comment on the fear of litigation costs as a justification for opposition to civil legislation.

Bill, I also saw Candace's piece and was excited - it fits a perception that I have written about twice. But I also went to the U of Florida news release for more, and the research is not as promising as RD was suggesting. This was not so much evidence of a growth in the religious left, as a new measurement approach which shows that it has always been bigger than expected - because previous measures of "religious" voters have effectively measured only one type of religious identification, those who are concerned about avoiding sin. The researchers recognised (rightly) that another take on religion is concerned more about helping others. (About two thirds of the Catholics fall into this approach to religion). The new measure shows the left is bigger than previously thought, but to conclude that it is growing, there would need to be two measures from the same technique for two time periods, and that they do not have.

This doesn't deny the argument that the religious left is growing - it just doesn't produce statistical evidence. However, it is true that Obama's brand of religion is of this kind, and helps to give credibility both to the religious left position, and to the idea that it is growing.

But there is a more important point here: once again there is a clear disconnect between the Bishops and other Catholics. The Bishops seem to get into public discourse primarily on matters that they see as "sin" - but two thirds of their flock are on the other side, of service and justice - which is where the Gospel emphasis quite clearly lies.

WDL · 1 month ago

Terry, I've fallen behind thanking folks for responses to postings. I appreciate the response. I'm torn these days between thinking that there may be an uptick in progressive religiosity in the U.S., and in thinking that the religious right remains decisive and powerful.

Phillip Clark · 1 month ago

It is both deeply troubling and discouraging to know that such a legalistic way of interpreating human existance has prevailed throughout the universal Church in recent days. This rigid interpration is in blatant opposition to the way that the Jesus of the Gospels espoused; which is instead oriented towards tolerance, justice, and peace for all individuals.

The arguments of the Church's leaders are based upon the premise that at the point of the legitimization of the equal rights of homosexuals by the government, somehow, Catholic institutions will have their doctrines threatened by this reality and will be forced to teach the morality of same-sex marriage. This is a baseless and unfounded argument and the more the leaders of the Church or any person of substance continues to use this devoid claim it only serves to prove their idiocy and fear rather than true concerns of civil or moral justice.

Even though the recent events in Maine are gravely abhorant and discouraging, that a group of individuals' rights were simply voted away, a new trend from that particular initiative emerged. That of vocal, loyal opposition within the Church by all the members of the People of God. Let's hope that this trend will continue to repeat itself, and indeed contribute to a resurgence of a religious left, that champions justice, equality, tolerance, and sensibility towards all of God's creatures!

WDL · 1 month ago

Phillip, you're right. There seems to be a baseless and unfounded assumption, as you say, that legalizing same-sex marriage as a CIVIL ceremony will threaten the beliefs of church members.

The question is, of course, why civil society has any obligation to enshrine beliefs peculiar to any particular religious group in law. If those beliefs happen to intersect with the principles that are fundamental to the constitution of any given civil society, then I understand the overlap of religion and politics. But if they are antithetical or incidental to the principles of the civil society, then I wonder why we would allow a religious group to impose its peculiar beliefs on everyone in a society.

colkoch · 1 month ago

A friend of mine suggested something I have been mulling over. He said it's time to make the bishops put up or shut up. His solution was to introduce a marriage referendum which would deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples who could not prove their fertility and that this referendum should also take away right from married couples where the wife is past menopause. If marriage is all about procreation, than the rights should be extended only to couples who can procreate. The rest can have civil unions with limited rights. In other words let's go marrige apartheid all the way.

WDL · 1 month ago

I've seen that proposal on several websites, Colleen--to apply the same norms to straight couples that the church wants to apply exclusively to same-sex couples, as a precondition for marriage.

On the face of it, it's attractive and logical. But I don't think it would ever work out in practice--and I suspect you know that and are proposing this arrangement primarily as a way of commenting on the gross injustice of how the church approaches LGBT human beings.

I suspect that, given the opportunity to go behind a curtain into a voting booth and pull the lever to show some people that they are inferior and despised, there is a significant percentage of folks who will do that anytime they can--no matter who the demeaned group happens to be at the time.

It's a grand failure on the part of our legislative and judicial system that it allows people to keep doing this, in violation of core principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We cheapen ourselves as a society when we allow those who benefit from these displays of cruelty towards others to keep displaying their cruelty over and over, by voting away rights enshrined in the constitution.