November 19, 2008 at 10:23 pm (Life Observations, Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: california, castro, christians, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, gays, homosexuality, jhop, prop 8, proposition 8, protest, san francisco, tolerance
I was sickened today to watch the video testimony of a young woman who was part of a group of Christians attacked in the Castro district of San Francisco last week for worshiping peaceably in public. Based on the woman’s account and a separate written account by another Christian in the group, the Christians were shouted and cursed at, had objects thrown at them (including hot coffee), were stolen from, were molested, and were threatened with death. The Christians were not evangelizing, only playing music and singing in a predominantly gay part of town that they frequented for this purpose. Police forces were required to protect the Christians from the angry mob as they escorted them out of the area. I also watched several minutes of raw video footage taken at the scene that illustrates the militancy of the protesters as the police intervened.
I heard a Christian comment on this event, and he said that in some respects that the Church at large may be reaping what it’s sown. Sadly, I have to agree with him there. I’m also saddened that a group of people who clamor for public acceptance resorted to violence to express their message. This is not what Martin Luther King, Jr., would have done. I’m hopeful that the gay people I know would condemn these actions in the same way that moderate Muslims would condemn the actions of radicals.
You can probably Google well enough to find the two videos mentioned here. However, if you should find the KTVU article, keep in mind that it contradicts the first-hand accounts. The bent of the article is that the Christians had a political purpose that night, which they said they didn’t. It also fails to include any comment from the Christians involved, which is probably how it manages to omit reporting any of the violence that occurred.
Leave a Comment
November 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: femininity, gender identity, gender roles, heterosexuality, homosexuality, masculinity, men, sex, sexuality, women
Gender roles today are a far cry from what they used to be, particularly as far as women are concerned. Until not long ago women were primarily regarded as little more than homemakers and child-bearers. Today it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman not only to have a career, but even to enter traditionally male-dominated careers like the military and even auto racing.
But perceptions of gender roles appear to be bending beyond mere job functions. There are those today who are defying traditional gender roles and asserting that gender itself is a flexible concept that should be detached from biological sex. Therefore, they say, it should be acceptable for women to identify as men and vice versa.
I don’t support this idea, but neither do I think that women should revert to being “barefoot and pregnant,” or that a man doesn’t belong behind the hairdresser’s chair. I don’t believe that gender is primarily about what men and women do. It’s not about girls playing house and boys playing with trucks. I believe gender is about characteristics we express.
I believe God did an amazing and brilliant thing by dividing humanity into two sexes with very different natures. This makes each sex dependent on the other for the characteristics it lacks. Women tend to be more nurturing, social, and emotional. Men tend to be more aggressive, physical, and problem-solving. In general, our biological features seem to support these attributes.
Yet these attributes can be expressed in ways that differ from the stereotypes. A feminine woman can be a construction worker as much as a masculine man can be an interior designer. As a Christian woman who grew up loving baseball more than Barbie, I’ve thought a lot about God’s intentions behind gender. I’ve come to believe that healthy gender identity is not about shoehorning people into fixed roles, but about men and women, boys and girls, expressing the nature that God designed their sex to express, however that may work itself out externally.
Leave a Comment
November 6, 2008 at 9:04 am (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: abortion, euthanasia, life, pro-choice, pro-life
Our answer to the question of when life begins to have value has direct implications for how we answer the question of when life ceases to have value.
Leave a Comment
November 5, 2008 at 9:40 pm (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: civil unions, cohabitating, cohabitation, family, gay marriage, marriage, traditional marriage
Since my last post, I’ve been thinking about what the definition of “marriage” is. If we’re going to discuss marriage, don’t we need to define the term? I’m sort of thinking out loud here; here are my thoughts so far.
To start, based on my observation, it must be that marriage is more than:
- Two people living together in a romantic relationship. We say that these people are cohabiting, but not married.
- Two people living together in a romantic relationship with a lifelong commitment. Two people can live together, care for each other, and be committed to each other but still not be considered “married” — even if they have kids together.
What are some of the factors that all marriages have in common?
- two and only two people
- a man and a woman*
- a mutual lifelong commitment
- a public profession of that commitment
- cohabitation and the sharing of resources
- the official sanction of government (and possibly a religious group)
- implicitly, the sanction to have and raise children (which implies rights and responsibilities concerning those children)
* For most legally recognized unions that are actually called “marriages” and not something else. Yes, I know the term marriage has been redefined in some places. But the burning issue is whether the existing definition should be changed universally. So don’t flame me about that, I’m just starting from the beginning.
(BTW, I omitted “romantic relationship” from the above list because two people can be married without having romantic feelings for each other, but that’s another issue.)
It appears to me that the things that make marriage distinct from cohabitation include: (a) an official public sanction, and (b) rights and responsibilities concerning children. I may be simplifying it or forgetting something, but that’s what I’ve got so far.
More thoughts later.
1 Comment
