Homosexuality: The Conservative "Last Stand"

Andrew Hodges, author of "Alan Turning: The Enigma," describing the findings of scientists by the mid-20th century regarding the mind and human development: "... nineteenth and twentieth-century science had been peeling the onion of the mind, and had dented the concept of responsibility with 'mental illness', shell-shock, neurosis, breakdowns and so forth. Where was the line to be drawn? The conservative fear was that every kind of behavior would be excused by appeal to some irresistible, uncontrollable, force majeure. ... they sought a non plus ultra [nothing beyond this] to the pretensions of mental determinism, a barrier against the flood of threats to traditional values unleashed by the Second World War. They found one in homosexuality: the new men's talk of 'conditions' and 'complexes' was not to be allowed to excuse a deadly social evil, corrupting and weakening everything in its path" (p.579).

It's hard for me to fathom the relentless social/moral fears flooding the conservative mind: to approach the world in fear, in terms of threat and loss, believing one's self to be surrounded by enemies.

Though, of course, I have my own set of fears regarding the ever-present threat of fascism (the easy answer to complex questions), and where fear is high, fascism is just around the corner.

Yet, my Christian Faith provides a basis of confidence: "Fear not."

And "perfect love" (meaning complete, no piece missing) "casts out fear."

The conservative mind will gladly take away freedom in order to maintain social morality. And no better arena in which to engage the "liberal enemy" than the arena of sexuality, both homosexuality and women's bodies.

Here is the fulcrum on which the conservative mind balances ... lose here, and everything is lost.

Whereas I say: win here, and everything is gained - freedom and democracy grow all the larger.

Freedom and Abortion

I share this here because of what it means for me - that it's easy to question and judge people whose lives we can see only at a distance, and from that safe distance, render decisions and observations that satisfy our own need for holiness by diminishing that of the judged. 

So many of our painful discussions here are about the "sins" of others ... and how to stop them ... in this regard, I'm a Calvinist - sin is part of the human reality, and there's no sense in getting all hot and bothered about it, especially the sins of the other ... I've got more than enough in my own closet to keep me busy for the next thousand years.

As I see it, there has always been abortion, and there will always be abortion ... to even suggest that we put a stop to it is unreasonable and full of self-holiness. What we can do is lessen the circumstances that prompt it. And, please, let's stop jumping on poor women - the wealthy get abortions, too ... fact is, they have always gotten abortions - if not available locally, they fly elsewhere ... or can always buy a doctor to perform the procedure.

What's needed is mercy ... not judgment ... 

I believe in a woman's right to choose ... that's so fundamental to me, so basic, so essential to our freedom in Christ ... a freedom that welcomes us, and allows us, to be as we are, so that in time we will become a little bit more of what it means to be a human being created in the image of God.

God, too, had to make plenty of painful decisions that were costly, both to God and to humanity - life isn't easy, even for God. 

And for millions of people, life isn't easy, either, and the last thing they need are some self-holiness seeking folks jumping all over them for their lapse. What they need, first of all, is kindness and welcome, and the support of a society that decides to stop the killing of the poor by withholding social services, the killing of Iraqis and Afghanis by ceaseless warfare, the killing of women by ignoring the violence of men, the killing of children because we're drowning in guns.

The larger social issues need our attention first of all ... to focus on secondary and tertiary matters only assists us in our quest for self-holiness and will never ever come close to offering solutions.

Michelle Bachmann's Loss of "Religious Freedom"

Michelle Bachmann says that Minnesota's approval of gay marriage denies "religious freedom" to those who oppose it. 

I don't get that. Folks who oppose gay marriage can remain so; if their gay children get married, they don't have to go to the wedding. Their churches don't have to open their doors to gay weddings; their pastors don't have to officiate. No one's telling anyone to do anything, or stop anything. 

Nothing changes for them. 

It's like saying: "Giving my neighbors the right to have a dog in their apartment takes away my freedoms to not have a dog." In logic, one of the first lessons learned: "A" does not imply "B." 

Freedom to marry for LGBTQ persons does not mean a loss of freedom for those who oppose such freedom. No way, no how.

Shut and Locked Doors

Some love shut and locked doors ... don't know why.

Does it make them feel powerful to be, or so they think, on the inside? Does it feel good good to them to know that others are locked out of their little party?

Whenever the United States has engaged in such discussions, in time, God be praised, the door has been unlocked to the blessing of everyone.

Those on the outside found new freedom and opportunity, and those on the inside found that the inside is a whole lot better when everyone is present and accounted for.

An inside group with only a few is more a prison than a party.