Chicago Sun-Times OpEd: Gay rights don't trump faith...

This lady pushed my buttons while I was eating breakfast at my favorite restaurant after visiting the gym on Saturdays. I think I may have reacted out loudly by saying something like "bullshit" or worse. I had the headphones on with the soundtrack from Across the Universe playing. I got a few looks whatever I said. It's a very straight suburban restaurant to say the least. Oh well.

Title, again, was Gay rights don't trump faith. Deborah Douglas is on the editorial board of the Chicago Sun-Times. She wrote this piece in response to the controversy Barack Obama has created for himself by using Donny "Homosexuality is a Curse" McClurkin at this concerts this weekend to drum up African-American and religiously conservative support in South Carolina and the South in toto.

Though I reacted to most of what she was saying, even the apologetics she presented, the line that got me was,

"To force a change in its theology to fit a contemporary social agenda is anathema to the foundational purposes of the church."

You can read my response to her in an email below. Though, when you read the letter, I was logical, consistent and polite, what I really wanted to say was...

Bullshit.

with a capitol B....

In a recent conversation, a very close friend brought up to me that I have a reaction to idiocy that is far from quiet and calm. She was concerned about some work we are doing together and how I might react when I heard some of the things that I was going to hear. I admit that she is 100% correct in her observation. I do have a very difficult time with idiocy. However, I assured her that when I'm working, and being paid, I don't act that way, only with friends when I need to dump. What I am doing in this job is "facilitating" collaboration. I certainly need to be very focused in doing this sort of thing and I know that I am cautious with how I handle things, otherwise there is no collaboration, only dictatorship. [When I worked in a restaurant we had this saying - You don't s*** where you eat. It's very true.]

Anyway, back to my reaction to the OpEd. You can read my response below. I am not calling the lady an idiot. I do not know her personally nor do I know if she is ignorant of the facts I present that I believe make her conclusions wrong, in my opinion. I hope she rethinks some of the things she wrote and, I assume, believes. Even one shred of inequality to anyone is bane of existence to me.

you can be your own judge...

Ms. Douglas:

Three words in response to your op ed in today's Sun-Times:

You are wrong.

You make the point that, "To force a change in its theology to fit a contemporary social agenda is anathema to the foundational purposes of the church."

It is exactly what Paul of Tarsus and his rabble did to the religious beliefs of others 2,000 years ago. It is what they fought against with Nero, Caligula, et alia to stop the insipid persecution of Christians. They forced a change to fit contemporary social agenda. Abolitionists and suffragettes did the exact same thing. Luther shook the Roman church to its core for a contemporary agenda. Every major shift in thinking came from the same thing.

Christians have used this over the passed 2,000 years to not only make change but to justify things like slavery, opposition to women's rights, and persecution of other religions. [Some Christian religions still use these arguments today to disenfranchise individuals and groups.] It is directly in contradiction to all the teachings of Jesus that are easily discerned in the gospels, even if one considers them not to be divine. These teachings are, at the least, human and a model guide to living every day.

Nothing should stop equality for all mankind, least of all the words of Jesus who exemplified, by the church's own admission, bringing everyone into acceptance whether it be the leper, the prostitute, the gentile, or the Greek into the same promise. Christians, themselves, have stopped equality at the front door of their sanctuaries just as the Romans did in persecuting the early church. At the very least the Romans were more equal. They equally tortured, persecuted, or killed everyone who was not a Roman, and they had very strict laws about who was or was not a Roman. 

Christians have done what every other religion, faith, belief has done for thousands of years: used the writings of the past to justify their beliefs even if the face of those writings was inherently wrong by its own teachings. Case in point, the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus (18:22) is used over and over again to defend the stance against LGBT. Yet, what is too often forgotten is that 26 lines later (Ch 19:18) the words written are ...but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And who, allegedly, made this the message surrounding all of his other teachings? And, what exactly was his idea? To start a new religion? 

Look at the documented church history. It was Saul and Peter who fought this battle. Jesus was a Jew and, to borrow a recent phrase from Ann Coulter, wanted to "perfect" Judaism. [not in the same way, of course] As a reference, read Matthew 5:18 "...not one yodh or little horn shall pass away from the law...." The "law" of which he speaks is the only law he knew as a rabbi - Hebrew law. All else is pastiche. His goal was to bring not only the Pharisees and the Sadducees back to the basics of Judaism but all other Jews and to include other groups as well. Talk about your fundamentalist. 

To finish, if it is not the churches who take the stand and open their doors to all, who then will it be? The government? Jesus more than once said that government had to stay out of this area short of insuring that all have the same opportunities. To stretch even this point to a logical consequence of his teachings, what is the government doing legislating laws and amendments to bar equality to everyone? ENDA? Same-sex marriage? Remember, miscegenation? Christian leaders used the Curse of Ham and the story of Phinehas from the Bible in argument for banning inter-racial marriage until the laws were finally found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967. 1967! Ironically, the largest group around today that embraces everyone in every way no matter what they believe are atheists. 

You may think that I am preaching to the choir, and I am often accused of it. However, I have a problem when the choir not only is not singing the same song but is also off-pitch. I have the ability to hear perfect pitch. Fingernails on a chalkboard have a better sound to me. That is why I believe that you are wrong, no matter what. You are not eschewing obfuscation.

To use a quote from Mark Twain, - "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian."

Thank you for your time,

J Michael Ireland

no matter what... eschew obfuscation

there, i feel better now. all my buttons are all back in their right places...