California: Civil Laws vs. "Religious" Laws and the Freaked Out Evangelicals

OK. I debated with myself for quite a while before deciding to post this writing to my blog. I really don't want anyone to read this the wrong way. My wife has a cousin, one of the sweetest people I know who is in a committed same-sex relationship to another one of the sweetest people I know. The couple has a little one and from what I have seen they are excellent parents. For their sake, if no one else's, I really don't want anyone to think I am saying something I am not. Because my intention is not to talk about same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, but rather the Christian community's reaction to it - especially those who have a nationwide platform on TV or the radio. So with that, I hope those who read this will ask me before assuming that something written here is my words and not a quote (which I will try very hard to cite correctly). All comments are welcome.

Without further ado, here's what was rattling around in my brain:

 

As everyone knows, California became the next state to legalize same-sex unions, or marriage, or whatever the "politically correct" term is. I know there is a lot of controversy regarding the fact that this decision was handed down from the courts, overriding a ballot initiative from I don't know when - but I'm not going to talk about that. That's politics, which honestly I don't understand all that much (especially how it works in California) and that's for the governmental process of California to work out.

Also, I'm not going to talk about the "morality" of same-sex unions, or what the Bible says about "homosexuals". That's not my place. Instead I want to talk about the reaction of so-called "Evanglical Christian Celebrities" - those who have a platform to a national audience either through TV or radio.

First, let me applaud the authorities in California for making it clear that this was a Civil decision and has nothing to do with Religious freedom. A spokesman for the State of California on CNN stated (a paraphrase since I can't find the broadcast online any more) "we're not telling churches what they have to do. Whether they choose to perform these ceremonies or not is not for the state to decide, but the state courts have decided that these civil unions are the right thing to do...." So, even though same-sex couples are legally getting married, no one is forcing the priests, pastors, ministers, preachers, rabbis, or any other religious leader to do the marrying. I, personally, am a firm believer in the separation of church and state (at least where religion is not life threatening to those not able to decide for themselves).

Also let me applaud those whose job it is to speak from the pulpit who haven't made a big deal out of this. I'm sure the preacher at my church has an opinion on the matter, but I haven't asked him and when he preaches he hasn't said anything. The separation of church and state goes both ways. While the members of a church may talk among themselves, a political opinion shouldn't be expressed from the pulpit. In fact, it's my understanding that legally, political opinions CAN'T be expressed from the pulpit - at least if a religious organization wants to keep their tax exempt status. (At least that's how it works here in New Mexico, it may be different elsewhere, but I'd be surprised.)

The issue I have is with "Christian Celebrities" (for lack of a better term), such as Chuck Colson and Dr. James Dobson and their organizations for inciting panic in the Christian community by using their nationwide platforms to make people believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on that will cause us all to lose our freedoms of religion and speech.

Focus on the Family has sneakily found a loophole that allows them to use their radio program as a political platform. By creating a subsidiary called "Focus on the Family Action" - supposedly a taxable organization funded by taxable donations (not sure how that works, but it sounds "ify"). By doing this they can, at any time, air a program on political issues in the same time slot they use for Christian family issues. They just say "paid for by Focus on the Family Action" and they apparently can say anything. This is really upsetting to me. If they are going to air a program paid for by a separate fund than their regular programming, they should also air it at a different time. If I tune in to Focus on the Family, then I should hear a program about family issues, not blind sided by a discussion on political issues. If you air it at the same time, then its from the same people. Legal loopholes shouldn't allow you to play "whistle-blower" whenever you want.

So, since they do this, I have heard a couple of programs on this issue already. I have the highest respect for the good things that Focus on the Family has done, but I really think Dr. Dobson has crossed the line and is making religious mountains out of civil molehills. While he may be correct in saying that 'as California goes, so goes the country', I really don't agree that this signals the end of the world as we know it. You can't, and shouldn't try, to impose your morality on others, except in cases where the public welfare is at stake. For Dr. Dobson to cry that the judges in California "IMPOSED" same-sex marriage on the people and that this is a "disasterous loss for defenders of morality" is for him to cry wolf.

Another example is Chuck Colson and his daily 4 minute commentary "Breakpoint". Again, while I have the greatest respect for his organizaiton "Prison Fellowship" and all the great things they have done for the incarcerated and their families, I believe that Mr. Colson is using his radio platform to raise an alarm and incite panic where respect and and rational thought are needed. In his recent broadcast entitled "The Coming Persecution", he cites a few isolated cases as proof that California's civil decision will cause all our religious freedoms will soon be taken away unless we "get involved".

I am all for free speech. Anyone can say anything in this country, and that's a beautiful thing. And as such, we are also free to disagree. However, free speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (unless there is one).  By sounding a battlecry where rational thought is needed is the equivilent of sounding just such a false alarm.

Let's all remember "Love thy neighbor".

The One Who Had Been and Yet Was Not (a what-if story) Part 1

To describe the man as elderly was to be kind. He was, in fact, old. Very old. Ancient, really. It was impossible to determine the color of his skin because the wrinkles were so numerous, and so deep, that any light that touched it disappeared into shadow. He had long since lost his hair, all his hair, even the ability to grow facial hair. He looked like he belonged in a tent, somewhere in the African desert, riding a camel, tending goats.

Instead, he looked very out of place, sitting in the front room of a Hollywood mansion, dressed in a tailored suit and silk tie. While he was very thin, and wrinkled, he showed now other signs of what obviously had to be a very advanced age. Oh, his speech was slow and deliberate, and his motions were equally calculated, but his posture showed no signs of arthritis or osteoporosis and his eyes were bright and clear.

That's how the news crew found him. The mansion wasn't his, it belonged to some TV preacher, the same that had invited the cameras and the microphones here with what he assured them was the story of the millennium. Indeed, if it were true it would change the world - or so this televangelist told his followers. But when they arrived, the news crews didn't find the scoop of all time, they found an old man.

Susan was the face of the Satellite News Network, and acted very much like the star she believed herself to be. She had been with SNN for more than 15 years, fighting her way up the ladder from being a college intern fetching coffee to being the most recognized anchor-woman on satellite television. She had earned her stardom, at least in her mind. As she sat across from the old man, she ignored him. This was her usual way to prepare for an interview. Her crew swarmed about them like bees, doing make up, setting up lights and cameras and microphones. The old man, on the other hand, was looking at her, waiting, seeming to study her face.

Normally Susan found that highly annoying and never hesitated for a moment to tell her interview subject, in less than polite tones, to look someplace else. The secret service thought she was crazy when she said that to the President, but that was her way. Besides, like most men, the President was trying to look down her top. Pig. This time however, as the old man looked into her eyes, something was different.

There was something in the old man's eyes that just seemed so..... calming. As he sat there looking at her, his eyes exuded a look that could only be described as.... what? What was that? Peace? yes, that was it, peace and compassion. She had seen pictures of Gandhi and Mother Theresa, the old man's eyes were like their's, only amplified. It was enchanting and alarming at the same time.

She tried to stay in her routine. She looked through her notes. The scum-bag preacher and his buddy, her boss, refused to give her any useful information so she was using her generic interview questions. She still had no idea why the network executives had agreed to send her on not someone else, maybe the preacher-man had something on them - people with money had a way of getting their fingers into everything. No matter, she was a professional and she would do her job.

Matt, her producer was standing behind the man - whose name she still didn't know -giving her the cue that it was time to start. If this were a live interview, she would snap into action and await the countdown, but they were taping it so she did what she usually did to annoy Matt - make him wait. Check her look in the mirror one more time, thumb through the notes again, check the lay of her skirt to make sure the camera got a good shot of her legs... ok, might as well start.

The lights came up, the cameras started, and Matt gave her the go.

"Good evening, I'm Susan Watts, and you're watching The World Tonight.", the execs hated the title, so of course she insisted they keep it.

"We have a very special guest with us tonight. Up to now we've been keeping it secret, even from me, but now I'll let him introduce himself - sir, please tell us your name." This was it, this is when her skills as anchor would kick in. No matter what this man said, no matter how stupid or boring this interview turned out to be, she would make it work.

"My name", he started, his voice clear and suddenly strong, "is Elazar Ben-Barsabbas. You may call me Lazarus. I am the oldest man alive."

O....K... Susan wondered again why she was here and not D-crew (who normally did the dog-walks-5000-miles-home and family-living-in-car-wins-lottery stories) but there was no turning back now.

"Lazarus, it's a pleasure to meet you, can you tell us, how old are you?"

"Two-thousand, twenty-five, according to your modern calendar".

"CUT!!", Susan yelled so loud that everyone on the crew squealed in surprise. "Mark, get Bill on the pone, I want to know why I'm here interviewing some crack-pot and I want to know NOW!" She ignored Lazarus, as he called himself, though he continued to look at her with that look of calm compassion.

There was much commotion over the next few minutes. When Susan had run out of people to yell at, she sat in her chair again and put her head in her hands and screamed in frustration.

"Susan. Are you alright?" She looked up to see the crack-pot still looking at her, waiting for an answer to his question.

"Sir, no offence, but you're not worth my time. Do you know who I am?"

"Susan Watts, you work for SNN. I've seen your news reports from time to time. You're very good at what you do."

"Yes....." the way he said it, with such calmness, disarmed her for a moment. He certainly didn't talk like a crack-pot, in fact he sounded much more like she imagined Gandhi or Mother Theresa talked. She couldn't help but compare them, there was just something....

"Please," he continued, "Can you and I just talk for a moment? I know you were blind-sided with this, but perhaps if we could just talk for a moment..."

 

Continued.......