I spent a lot of time on the Internet as a teenager. I also, as I always have, placed myself firmly on the left of the political spectrum. And, of course, I had known that I was gay for years. As I argued with socialists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians and everyone in-between, I frequently encountered befuddlement about how I could, on the one hand, identify firmly as a liberal and, on the other hand, strongly espouse a belief in God.
Nonetheless, my reaction to those who consider themselves religious and conservative has often been a similar reaction of shock and, to a degree, confusion. In the United States, religious observance tends to go hand-in-hand with conservatism, or at least Republican voting. But these tendencies -- to oppress LGBT people and immigrants, to fight against a social safety net, to advocate policy which benefits the already-rich -- seemed so diametrically opposed to what I knew of faith and religion. It is only with enormous difficulty that one can pass over the passages that urge social and economic justice, which are interwoven into the very essence of Abrahamic faith.
The Christian right would have us believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they tolerated homosexuality, and that beneficence and charity are a matter to be relegated to individual conscience, not an issue of public morality. This is quite plainly not the case. It is written, "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). In Ezekiel, it is not individuals being condemned for failing to help the needy -- it is a community that is condemned. We all have an obligation to help those are in need, not merely on an individual basis, but as a matter of policy.
Indeed, the prophetic tradition emphasizes the importance of policy, and specifically taxation, as a tool that can be used either for righteousness or moral wrong: "Assuredly, because you impose a tax on the poor, and exact from him a levy of grain, you have built houses hewn of stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted delightful vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I have noted how many are your crimes, and how countless your sins -- You enemies of righteousness ... you who subvert in the gate the cause of the needy!" (Amos 5:11-12).
Some might read these passages and conclude that it would be enough merely to refrain from doing harm; that to simply not engage with politics or social justice is acceptable. They would be wrong. As people of faith, we are commanded, "צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף" -- "Justice, justice, shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). We are further told, "Do not stand idly by as your neighbor bleeds" (Leviticus 19:16). These passages do not merely enjoin us from committing wrongs, but in fact urge us to actively work toward a better society.
The question remains: Who are the "needy," on whose behalf we are called upon to struggle? From these passages, we can already tell that we are obliged to "support the poor," and not "impose a tax" upon those who struggle to make ends meet. But we must also work for others, as well: our neighbors who suffer ("bleed"; Lev. 19:16), those ostracized as "other" (Lev. 19:33-34), and the elderly (Lev. 19:32), are only some.
This is a holy struggle, but it is not the one that the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells would have you believe in. Our enemy is not the poor, but poverty; it is not homosexuality, but homophobia. We are called upon to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. It is never right to stay silent as evil is perpetrated, but today the assault on our social safety net, the torment of our children, and the attack on sexual minorities and immigrants has reached such a point that it is unconscionable to say silent.
Follow Noah Baron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/noahbbaron
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: The Values Voter Summit and the Idolatry of 'Family Values'
http://www.change.org/petitions/government-of-the-united-states-of-america-legalize-gay-marriage
You are the peace, love and understanding sort of christian. Others would see me harmed or jailed.
People will pick the version of the scripture that either provides confirmation bias, or is the path of least resistance. Actually helping people and speaking out against cruelty takes time, effort and commitment. Hating LGBT people is easy and free. Both let you feel "holy." People take the easier path.
Simple truth - You cannot assert that your interpretation is right (there is no such thing as a "true" christian any more than there is a "true scotsman") and you have no power to compel others to conform to your interpretation.
So what's your point? Christian's who are LGBT are probably more willing to help LGBT people (although some will suffer cognitive dissonance and be so conflicted that they don't act) and you are posting in the Gay Voices pages so you are already speaking to them.
I ask again. What's your point?
Religion should not be about beating people over the head with your particular holy book. Religion should be about making the world a better place.
One's relationship to religion is exactly about what one's relationship to another person should be about, or what one's relationship to psychoactive substances, or money, or anything else should be about.
The purpose of any relationship-- to faith, to people, to money, to alcohol-- is to make your life better by the fact that you are in that relationship. If that relationship is not making your life better, than what is the point of being in it?
Jesus made the very cogent observation about conservative religionists (especially Christians long before there were any) who use their holy book as a weapon against people they don't know, know nothing about, and who have done them no harm..
By their fruits shall you know them.
Those who are perverting what he believes christianity is (which is by no means a universally accepted view) are not here. Those who he believed need the lesson are not here. Those he calls upon to re-think and re-consider are not here.
I am just doubtful whether this article is anything more than lip service and possibly a tiny bit of an ego stroke.