A few Saturday's ago, my husband and I spent our afternoon in the fellowship hall of St. Luke's Community Church. As Christians, it's not uncommon for us to spend part of our weekends gathered with people at a place of worship. What was different about this church gathering was that we didn't read the Bible, sing hymns or talk about God. Instead, we read a handout detailing the next step for passing bill 2012-296, the addendum to Jacksonville, Fla.'s Human Rights Ordinance that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.
The meeting was emotional. Everyone was frustrated, but working to retain hope after being dealt setback after setback. Despite the bill being introduced in May, then discussed in multiple City Council meetings over the past two months, the members have not yet voted. Worse, the bill was quietly removed from agenda at the latest City Council meeting last Tuesday, meaning the discussion is now moved into committees, away from the public. It appears the community is no longer able to voice their support or opposition.
While many local and worldwide leaders have voiced their support, including former mayor John Delaney and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, our current Democratic mayor Alvin Brown has stayed mostly silent on the issue.
At the church meeting, the community leaders talked about staying strong in the face of the verbal attacks hurled from the opposition. Often times these insults and prejudices come from Jacksonville citizens, but sometimes they come from the Council Members themselves. Members like Councilwoman Kimberly Daniels, who publicly asked on the record, "sexual orientation ... could it be orientated to, other types, like animals?"
Statements like that are why I don't blame some people for their anger over the city's inability to pass the bill. People like the man sitting near my husband and I in the fellowship hall. "It's 2012" he said, "Why are we still letting them treat us like second class citizens? We should be in the streets!" His anger was directed at the Jacksonville churches and conservative religious community, who have been the strongest opponents of the bill. "It's not a religious issue" someone else said, "it's an economic one." Quietly, I thought to myself, I disagree.
To me, this is undoubtedly a religious, Christian issue. As a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, I have tried my hardest to adhere the teachings of Jesus. From my reading of Scripture, there is little doubt in my mind what side He would take for this issue.
He would stand with the persecuted.
In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.
In Jacksonville, the people who are abhorred by the religious Pharisees of today are the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals that this bill legally protects.
These modern day Pharisees claim this an issue of "legalizing a sinful lifestyle," failing to acknowledge that what two consenting adults do behind their doors should be none of their (or the governments) business. This is not about "lifestyle" at all. It's about blatant discrimination and legal prejudice, that they are hideously using Jesus as a reason to uphold.
Thanks to the wisdom of our forefathers, sin should have nothing to do with our laws. That's what the separation of church and state is for, and that's why religion is not only a terrible reason to allow legal prejudice, but an invalid one as well.
So why should I as a Christian be concerned with changing this, or any law, if other religious people can't use Jesus as a justification for policing their morality?
Because unlike the Jacksonville conservative religious community, LGBT residents are not trying to force their beliefs on anyone. All they're asking for is a city where they can work, live and be treated with dignity.
If I've learned anything from the Bible, it's that what Jesus was most concerned with was people. Treating ALL people with love, kindness and respect, and teaching his followers to do the same. Knowing that, I cannot stay silent while others are trying to use Jesus as a justification for their prejudice.
Thankfully, I am not the only Christian in Jacksonville who feels this way. A group of pastors and religious leaders has come together to urge the City Council to pass the bill. Hopefully their voices will have an impact on those members of the Council who are using their faith as a justification to discriminate. Maybe if more Christians, locally and elsewhere, would add their voices to this debate the bill would have a better chance of passing.
Like Jesus and many of his followers, I hate injustice. Because of that, I will not stop fighting with my LGBT brothers and sisters until this bill is passed, and Jacksonville joins the 160 other cities that offer legal protections for the community that I love and respect.
Follow Emily Timbol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmilyTimbol
Joanna Brooks: A Summer of LGBT-LDS Love?
Emily Timbol: The Damage of Overvaluing Virginity
Nicole Greer: How LGBT Summer Camps Shaped My Faith
"sin should have nothing to do with our laws"? Hmm, REALLY? how about the sin of murder? or stealing? or lying? throw those out too?
I suggest Ms Timbol write about something intelligent next time.
The constitution guarantees a separation of church and state, so that everyone could practice their own belief if they choose to, but no one is forced to participate in any belief system. As a Christian, how would you feel about being subjected to Laws from the Muslim or Jewish religions? You would be giving up many types of food, forced to fast for some periods of time, and various other things, for no reason at all, because they are of a different religion. This applies to Christianity as well. I would think it unfair to force Christians to follow Islamic laws, and it is equally unfair for our nation to have to follow Christian rules.
Because your reason for voting against homosexual marriage lies in your religion beliefs, you should vote to allow it, or at least not vote, simply because you must see that it is wrong to subject an entire nation with many different religions and some with no religion to the rules of your religion. A vote against gay marriage is a vote for theocracy and religious tyranny.
Excuse me if I pause to throw up a little. Your fake deity has inflamed the masses for 2000 years of hatred against those who exercise freedom of conscience which is a hallmark of our US Constitution. Your kind have been murdering us for 2000 years. You can take your megalomaniacal genocidal Jesus and shove him so far up your bum you needn't ever use a toilet again.
Please, show us ONE place where God condones men having sex with men and blesses that act.
Conversely, marriage and family is ALWAYS mentioned as between a man and a woman. Even divorce is mentioned between man and woman.
Paul explicitly condemns "arsenokoitēs" - those "who sleep with men" [as with women] -independently of the Levitical laws. You can take any of several revisionist interpretations, but these would not be in keeping with the understanding of the term by near contemporary speakers of the language.
What I do understand about "Christ is the end of the law" - "telos" can refer to the point at which something ceases, but I think it better read as "purpose". Telos gar nomou Cristos can be quite readily read as "The purpose of the law is Christ" without any failure to comprehend. You are free to take a different reading, but this is my understanding of the question.
Until I am convinced by better scholarship or other means, I shall have to humbly maintain the understanding of the various passages cited that has been prevalent for the past 2000 years. Odds that a revisionist position would better understand the text than those who natively spoke that language centuries ago are rather slim. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to change my beliefs just because they are unpopular or disputed.
As one of the fundamentalists (in the strict theological sense): believing another person to be committing a particular sin is no reason for persecution or hate, but for compassion and grace - like any other dispute.
This is one of the most true, valuable and honest statements Ive read in a long time:
"Until I am convinced by better scholarship or other means, I shall have to humbly maintain the understanding of the various passages cited that has been prevalent for the past 2000 years. Odds that a revisionist position would better understand the text than those who natively spoke that language centuries ago are rather slim. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to change my beliefs just because they are unpopular or disputed."
http://www.11points.com/books/11_things_the_bible_bans,_but_you_do_anyway
It's not about interpreting the scripture to fit your faith. It's about reading it to find what it truly says, unclouded by preconceptions.
Jesus did love sinners and reached out to them but he did discriminate and he did speak against sin; infact listen to what sweet little Jesus said:
Murder
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
That is nice, but your reading of Scripture is contrary to the great weight of authority for the entire history of the Christian religion. So why, exactly, should others believe that your reading is right, and the reading of past theologians and the entire Christian tradition is wrong?
Then let's avoid all of Christianity alltogether.
Give full legal rights to gays.
The founding fathers knew this when they signed the declaration of independence. They said we hold these truths to be self evident. They believe they had inalienable rights that were being violated. They did not appeal to Bible but the law written in everyones heart
should pedophiles be given full legal rights as well? how about rapists?
Sinful sexual behavior, which I define as that which hurts other people, isn't exclusively homosexual. How many unwanted and abused children are produced by heterosexuals?