As I type this another haboob is rolling through the valley and this one looks like it will reach us. It's just now starting to blow outside our place and the sky to the SE is brown with dust. What we really want is the rain that should be behind the dust cloud.
Yesterday was indeed the low point. I'm still sore today but not nearly as uncomfortable as yesterday. I gave thought to going to the gym this afternoon, not for a real workout but just some spinning on the exercise bike and/or walking on the treadmill. Decided to wait until tomorrow. It is, after all, Sunday, post preaching.
NBC's coverage of the Olympics has me looking for NCIS reruns. Too much talk, not enough sports. Too much time spent on the glamor sports, or individual events within those sports, and almost none on some of the unique events that would be interesting to watch. How 'bout our women's skeet shooter who has just set an Olympic record - a medal in 5 straight Olympics, including 99 out of 100 clays in this event to win gold?! Uhm, yeah, they pretty much ignored that except to show her last shot and a 5 second interview.
Took a break from writing this for dinner, and during that time the dust arrived. And the rain just started. The cars will be muddy in the morning.
Good grief. I hijacked my own thread! Had no intention of going on about Sharia law. But just to close the book on that one (pun intended), if a particular community votes to adopt elements of Sharia law AND those elements don't violate codified principles like "cruel and unusual punishment" or take away rights guaranteed at the state or federal level, I don't see a problem. It's my impression that Sharia law would very often pose that kind of conflict, even in civil matters like divorce where the husband gets everything. But again, I only know what I've read, and I haven't read a lot.
The elephant in the room is gay marriage. If the reports are to be believed the majority of Americans now favor legalizing same sex marriage. As an aside, that's a big "if." I find it noteworthy that every state where same sex marriage has been on the ballot it's been rejected, and every place an anti-same sex marriage initiative has appeared it has passed, including in CA. The only states where it's legal, I believe, are states where the legislature approved it apart from a vote of the people.
The question that interests me is the role I should play in the process. Is it fair for me to vote my conscience (as informed by the Bible's teachings on the subject) and vote in opposition to same sex marriage? (Or in favor of a statute defining marriage as between a man and woman.)
I can't imagine why not. Consider the alternatives: voting against my conscience or not voting. Neither makes any sense. What's the point in asking my opinion via the ballot box if I can't vote accordingly? The reasons for arriving at my viewpoint are irrelevant. Hey, there are lots and lots of people making decisions at the ballot box for the craziest of reasons - or no reasoning at all. That cat lady? She's voting!
A more legitimate question, or a more relevant question, is whether my basis for voting my biblically informed conscience can/should lead me to advocate for my viewpoint in the marketplace. On the one hand, why wouldn't I? It seems illogical to say, "This is what I think should be, what our society ought to look like in this area," but at the same time say, "However, I'm going to keep my perspective to myself and not urge others to agree with me, or those who already agree with me to make sure they also vote."
On the other hand, it's naive, even presumptuous to expect those who don't accept the authority of Scripture to agree with me because I do. I should rather expect them to disagree, and NOT get all indignant when they do. Going on about our country going to hell in a handbasket only serves to further marginalize me and my position. It's the definition of counterproductive.
What if there's a third option? What if I don't have to chose between silence and beating those who don't believe over the head with a 10 lb. leather bound King James Version of the Bible? Something that any fair minded person would have to at least give consideration?
6 comments:
To, perhaps, further define the conflict, two different questions on the matter might elicit different responses: 1) "do you believe marriage should be define as one man committed to one woman?" versus (2) "do you believe the U.S. Constitution permits two men (or two women) to be married to each other in the eyes of the law?" one asks for your personal view based on values, the other for your view on constitutional equality.
It is not surprising the gay marriage issue is never worded or discussed on the third option (because it wouldn't be a good headline or good ratings for arguing). It seems to me that a law could give relational union benefits to partners if they want. It also seems that a "religion" should not be compelled by that government to partake or support that union.
As you stated, I think it important to voice opinion when asked (vote) but I don't think we necessarily need to be militant about trying to make a worldly government a "religious" one. Frankly, if we did that it would just result in just as many arguments between each of the denominations on how to do it (humor intended).
Good topic to ponder Craig, this was one thing I planned to bring up in our small group after summer break but hadn't discussed it with anyone yet. Thanks for the material to build the discussion on.
Are those snakes??? And why are they all gathered on that dock like that??? That's horrifying!
Anonymous: yes, those two questions might get very different answers from the same person. The second question also illustrates the two views of the Constitution. Is it a living document or fixed and static? If we could call them up from the grave I think the drafters would be horrified at the prospect of legalized same sex marriages. But "living doc." advocates would say the principles they wrote into the Const. make for its legality.
Interesting!
Washington State passed a law granting most of the rights of marriage (maybe all?) to what it called "domestic partnerships." Two years later, the legislature passed a law allowing same-sex marriages. If this was only about "rights" then domestic partnerships would have solved the complaint.
Instead this is a front in the culture war and an attempt to normalize same-sex sexual relationships. Please for "equality" in all marriages are emotional and cliched covers for the real goal of getting mainstream society to normalize GLBTQ sexual orientation. In fact, since homosexual relationships cannot physically produce children except through medical intervention or adoption, same-sex marriages are not equal at all.
I'm not upset about same-sex marriage, but I do detest the dishonesty spewed by those who are in favor.
My two cents
BTW, while "Our Little Corner" asked if those were snakes, I viewed them as the excrement emitted by the plethora of Canadian Geese we get here in the Northwest. Their feces gunks up our docks and water-side patios somethin' fierce. Perhaps the picture IS of snakes and I'm just jaded from years of washing the goose poop from surfaces I like to be able to safely use.
Post a Comment