Where is Homosexual Empathy?

Empathy:  The ability to put yourself in another person's shoes.

A few semesters ago, I took an ethics class at a community college.*  The teacher asked where aligned ourselves on whether we felt homosexuality was a result of nature or nurture .  In other words, do we feel homosexuality is a choice you make or something that you are born with?  About 80% of the class raised their hand and identified with the nurture side of the argument. Meaning, they felt homosexuality was a either a conscience choice made by someone or a result of some sort of psychological trauma.  I was among the few that agree with the nature side of the argument.  Meaning, we felt most homosexuals are "born that way" to some extent and cannot control who they are attracted to.

The nurture argument generally goes as follows: "The Bible says homosexuality is sin.  Why would God create something that is forced to live in that sin?  Therefore, being gay is a choice you make."  As far as I can tell, that argument and the "unnatural" argument are the only arguments used, or some variation of them.  I would like to challenge conventional Christian thinking in regards to this argument...

To do this, all I need is a very simple line of questioning...
Do you believe homosexuality is sin?  (most Christians answer yes)
Do believe man is born into sin? (all Christians answer yes)
Then why can't we be born slanted towards a particular sin?

Christianity teaches we are all born into sin.  Job 15:4, for example, implies that sinfulness is a property of humanity. In Psalm 51:5, the psalmist says that he was born from sin.  And, of course, Romans 3:23 says we are all sinners, falling short of God's standard.  I can cite other verses, but I think all Christians can agree that we are all born sinful.  Sin is not a choice.

We also have no problem conceding that particular sins might be heredity or somehow a part of our DNA.. most of us agree with this in regards to alcoholism, drug abuse, and even a propensity for violence.  So, why not homosexuality? Why do we feel our faith is under attack if someone argues that homosexuality something you are born with?

Think about this:  I am a heterosexual.  I do not decide who I find attractive or who I don't.  If I meet a particular woman and think she's pretty, I cannot make the decision to think otherwise.  If I do not find a particular woman attractive, I cannot not simply decide to find her smokin' hot.  It's not a choice I make.  It either happens or it doesn't.  I can, however, decide who I take on a date, whether or not to be sexuality active, who I have relations with, how I treat somebody, etc.  In other words, to put it bluntly, I can control my penis; I cannot control what my penis likes.

Every homosexual I've known has also said similar things: they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.  They don't make the decision to be or not to be sexuality attracted to a particular man, they say. They just are.

Sin manifests it's self in different ways in different people.  However, all of us are afflicted by it.. that is a core Christian belief.  I think homosexuality that is simply another way sin has manifested itself in certain individuals.  I thank God that it hasn't manifested itself in me.  I am grateful that being with the person I love and living in sin are not the same things in my life.  I cannot imagine the pain Christian homosexuals must feel..

So what's my point?  What am I trying to say?  I'm glad you asked. I am simply asking: where's the empathy?  Why are homosexuals shunned from our churches and alcoholics and other "sinners" are prayed for and accepted?  Why do treat homosexuals as somehow worse sinners than we are?  I fear the reason is mostly the inaccurate view on nature vs. nurture.  We can look at other sins and say, "Bless his heart.  There but for the grace of God go I."  But when it comes to homosexuals, we think "It's his choice.  If he don't want to be judged, he shouldn't be gay."  This is hypocritical.  A homosexual is no more of a sinner than I.

We feel like are losing ground in an argument if we concede that a homosexual may, in fact, be "born that way."  However, this is not the case.  Be careful, if you look at the issue with a different lens, you just might find yourself empathising with the feelings another wretched human being, just like yourself.

More of what this means politically later...

*It should be noted that I am in my 30s and most of the class was right out of high school.  Also, I live in the Deep South and most of the class identified with evangelical (Protestant) Christianity, as I do.  Also, I am a heterosexual male.

Abortion: The Elephant In The Room

I have not updated this blog in 2 years. There’s been a reason for that. It goes beyond busyness or writer’s block. Apathy or frustration towards the political process is not the reason either. The reason is simple: abortion. I realized being a blogger who criticizes the Political Right and the Church’s current devotion to them but has nothing to say about abortion may be equivalent to a weather vane without an arrow: pointless. I have tried to write about abortion before, but found my views conflicting with one another. It’s not that I’ve had nothing to say. It’s just that I haven’t known what to say. But today, I’ve decided to power through it and get ‘er done.

I have many conversations with Christian friends who all agree: abortion is wrong. I can debate with most of these friends and they can agree with me on some problems with Republican policies. Yet, they are still loyal to the party for one reason: Abortion. They feel abortion is a moral wrong. They feel any vote cast for a pro choice candidate, is a vote cast to murder babies. They feel terminating a fetus for convenience sake is wrong. The fetus has no decision in the process. The mother and the father chose to engage in a certain behavior, so they should be responsible.. so goes the argument. For those reasons, they are loyal Republicans.

I don't feel they are necessarily wrong in how they feel... abortion is an awful thing. Abortion is taking a human life who has no opinion in the process. But I can see the other side... My main argument against litmus test voting on the abortion issue is simple: If you are concerned about preserving human life, then the GOP is not your party.

Think about it... Which party is more likely to support capital punishment? Which party is less likely to support gun control? Which party fights against every environmental protection mandate? Which party is more likely to get us involved in a pointless war?

The Republicans also want to cut social safety nets to the bone. Food stamps. Medicaid. Welfare. Pell grants. You name it.. if it's a program designed as a "hand out" to those who are less fortunate, the GOP wants to cut it. Why is this relevant when it comes the abortion issue? Well, two reasons. First, the number one reason women cite when having abortion is money. They can't afford the baby. So, you can argue that pro-safety net policies (entitlement programs) actually reduce the number of abortions. The more you help women afford their babies, the less abortions will occur. The second reason is even more absurd... Consider this: If the GOP gets its way, abortions would cease, or at least be greatly reduced. That means as many as 30 million more babies born each year. However, Republicans don't seem to care about the child after it exits the womb. Their viewpoint may as well be: you better have that child, and when you do, you can either get a good job or live in a cardboard box. That doesn't seem to be a very pro-human life position.

I have more to say on the issue, but to sum up.. I believe that the GOP's current stance on abortion is less of a grave concern for the preservation human life than it is a calculated tactic to hold their evangelical Christian base

Why are Christians and Republicans Married?

In my view, Republicans have managed to do something both sinister and genius at the same time: convince Christian's that a vote for them is a vote against our nation's downward spiral away from God. They'll point to the School Prayer Decision, a decision in such-and–such a community to disallow the nativity scene or the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. They'll say all this is evidence that the "secular progressives" (the current term for "liberal") are trying to take power and turn our Christian Nation away from God, and something must be done.

Listen to Glen Beck. Watch O'Rielly and his "Culture Wars". Listen to the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of Sarah Palin and Newt Gengrich. They have attacked the current Ground Zero Mosque issue like a pack of dolphins to a school of tuna, eager to show concerned Americans how "Christian" they are in an election year. (And in my opinion, they are ignoring the Constitution and common decency in the process.) They mercilessly attacked the President for fulfilling his oath and defending the Constitution.

Think about it. If you study Republican talking points as a whole, the message they are trying to sell is that government is both the cause of and solution to our nation's apparent wickedness.

The Republicans have one thing right. Wickedness (sin) in our nation is a problem. But the lie they are selling my fellow Christians is that they (Republicans) can change it. Obviously, Sin has been a problem since Eve ate the Apple. Yes, our nation is digressing on moral ground in a lot of areas (recreational sex, pornography, abortion etc.) but we are progressing in others (racism, civil rights).

I am not saying Christians shouldn't be concerned with society's moral downfall. I am saying your vote at the ballot box can do nothing about it. The only way for Christians to make a difference morally in our society is the same way we've always done it. First, see what "wickedness" is in your life and correct it. Then do what God is asking you to do by helping teach others to do the same in Christ Jesus. Of couse, that is a lot harder than attending a Tea Party rally and blaming the Democrats for our nation's moral downfall.

When it comes to your responsibility at the ballot box, of course you should vote based on your faith. I hope you don't think I am saying otherwise. Just think about what the parties stand for on all the issues instead of buying everything the Republicans are selling you, hook line and sinker.

Crime: Republicans want to lock criminals up and throw away the key. Democrats want to make a more concerted effort to rehabilitate criminals and bring them back into society. Christ is for forgiveness. Heck, Christ is Forgiveness.

Welfare: Republicans want to drastically cut welfare in efforts to get the recipients of such programs back to work. Democrats want to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us. Christ was for taking care of the poor. He told us taking care of the poor was like taking care of Him.

Abortion: Republicans want to make abortion illegal. Done. Problem solved. Democrats are actually making steps to reduce the number of abortions by trying to help troubled pregnant women with government services, so they might be able to afford to keep the child and teaching students about the importance of contraception.

Immigration: Some Republicans want to repeal the 14th amendment's clause that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen so that illegal immigrates can't come here and drop their "anchor babies" or worse, so terrorists can't come here and drop their "terror babies." Democrats think that is the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Christ said "Let the little children come to me…"

Global Warming/ Environment: Republicans won't even acknowledge Global Warming as a real concern. Most of the time, they are not in favor of making environmentally conscious decisions if it means cutting profits. Democrats think environmental issues such as Global Warming are a major concern and are aggressively trying to acknowledge and fix the problem. God commanded us to take care of the earth.

Health Care: Democrats are at least trying to fix our nation's health care system and are attempting to provide for those who cannot afford adequate coverage. Republicans refuse to admit there is a major problem and are using health care reform as a wedge issue instead of coming to the table with solutions. Christ healed all who asked.

Look, I am not suggesting Democrats are correct in all their views. I am not saying Republicans don't have any valid ideas. All of these issues require very complex solutions. In no way, do I adhere to any particular Party line. I am just suggesting that I don't believe Christ would want us to follow one party so blindly.

Just remember, Republicans do this for only one reason: We are stupid enough to fall for it.

School Prayer

The topic of prayer in public schools is not currently discussed by the media and politicians as much as other issues relevant to religion and government. However I have an opinion on it and I figure it is a good of an issue as any to blog on, so here ya go:

A lot of Christians are quick to tell you decisions such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause, are some of the moments where our nation began a downward spiral away from God; a spiral we are still suffering from today.

I disagree. If you think about it, prayer was not taken out of our schools. Mandatory prayer was. As far as I know, students are still allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment right and pray at school. They are also free to have religious after-school activities. They just can't disrupt class without getting in trouble. It's not as if, when the courts decided that prayer couldn’t be a part of official school programming, we all of a sudden weren't allowed to pray at our schools. We just simply stopped. That's on us, not the government. Besides, I think the Jesus was pretty clear about mandatory, ritualistic prayers that don't come from the heart in Matthew 6:5-13. And, let's face it, that is all we lost in those decisions.

More Thoughts On The Mosque Issue

The Ground Zero mosque controversy has gotten much more heated in the weeks since I made the original post. I also sent the same blog into my county's local paper as a letter to the editor and it was printed yesterday. I think it's important for me to weigh in on this issue again because I feel we, as a country, are making a huge mistake in our reaction to this.

Let me say a few thoughts I have had since the post.

I will admit, building the mosque at its present location is huge public relations blunder for its supporters. That is to say, if their goal is to foster peace and understanding of Islam, they are doing a very poor job. Be that as it may, that's a political issue on their end, not a legal one.

If proof comes out that the backers of the mosque have ties to radicalism I will do a 180 on my position. Public safety trumps 1st amendment.

I have heard the Imam has said he wants Sharia law to be recognized in America. That will never happen. How do I know? Because of the Establishment Clause. Any pundit who makes that argument is just trying to scare the public. Puls, after doing a simple wikipedia search, I learned that there are very different interpretations of Sharia law within Islam. That means any Muslim that says something affrming Sharia is not necessarily talking about the brutal treatment of women.

What bothers me the most about this issue is how willing the American public is to paint mainstream Islam and radical Islam with the same brush. I don't think we realize how dangerous this is. The best way we can make a dent in curving the interest in radical Islam across the world is to let mainstream Islam help. Every time we speak out against the mosque, we are comparing the Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center to the Muslims who want to build the mosque.

Imagine if Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist whose goal was to overthrow the government because of the abortion issue, had killed 200 instead of 2 people at the Olympic Park bombing of '96. If a Baptist church wanted to build 2 blocks away, nobody would care. Why? Because we understand the difference between radical Christianity and mainstream Christianity. We know Christianity didn't attack us; a radical nutjob claiming to be a Christian did.

Complaining that we aren't allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries is a ridiculous argument. They don't allow churches because they don't have freedom of religion. We do.

I wish we would care more about the 1st Amendment than we do about our feelings and emotions.

Meeting with Mike Rogers

Friday, during a meet-the-common-folk swing through Randolph County, my congressmen, Republican Mike Rogers, sat down with my father and me over a basket of fried catfish at Lakeside Market and Grill. (On a side note, Lakeside Market and Grill does not serve hush puppies with their fried catfish. I might cover this blatant violation of Southern catfish etiquette in a later post.) I thought I would blog on our conversation.


I must confess I did not have the foresight to bring a tape recorder to this meeting. Nor did I identify myself as a political blogger. Therefore I will be paraphrasing the congressmen's comments as best I can from memory. I will email a copy of this post to his office and if he feels he was misrepresented in any way, I will be sure to make corrections and post a retraction if necessary.

The conversation started with Dad reminding Rep. Rogers of the working relationship of Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neal, and asking why the two parties of today were polarized and seemingly so unwilling to work together. Dad, a former nuclear submariner in the Navy, cited nuclear power as a possible similarity the two parties now share. (Nuclear power is an issue Republicans have been championing for years and President Obama has said he is in favor of more nuclear power plants.) Congressman Rogers agreed that Republicans would be glad to help the president in passing legislation to build more nuclear power plants, but said the Democratic leadership recently attached pro-nuclear power legislation to a bill about cap-and-trade, an issue Republicans are strongly opposed to. As a result, Republicans were forced to either vote for nuclear power and cap-and-trade or vote against both. Rogers said most Republicans voted against the bill. The congressman alluded to an issue that I have thought needed to be addressed since I started following politics closely: the ability to attach any language to any piece of legislation. I asked Mr. Rogers why this rule couldn't be changed suggesting the system would work better if each piece of new legislation was required to have a mission statement and no language could be attached to that legislation that was not related to that mission statement. He said he, and many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, would love for the rules to be amended in such a way. However, he said the House Rules Committee has to sign off on all rule changes and members of the committee were assigned by the party leadership, in particular, the Speaker of the House. He said passing a rule that takes power away from the powerful is very hard, because the powerful have to agree to such a rule change, thus relinquishing some of their power. He also complained that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was attached to an important defense spending bill and Republicans were forced to vote against the bill for that reason. I quipped that Republicans do the same thing when they are in power. He was quick to agree, saying that was how the Bush tax cuts were passed. I asked why they didn't go to the media and in an effort to expose the members of congress that benefit from the status-quo and unethically use the system for their own political gain. He said that the media thinks House rule changes are not sexy enough and therefore are would be uninterested in covering such a story.

Then Dad then brought the conversation to the fact that the FCC has Randolph and Cleburne county in the Atlanta media market despite the fact that most residents of both counties would rather be in the Birmingham market in order to better follow Alabama weather and politics. Rogers agreed that this was a major problem in his district, and said that he and some of his colleagues that represent similar districts across the country have tried every way they could think of to "skin that cat" for a long time. He regretted not having solved the issue, citing bureaucracy at the FCC as the reason. Dad offered a solution and Rogers said he would have his legislative director contact him so Dad could help him put his solution in legislative language.

I must say, I was impressed with Congressman Rogers' candor. He seemed like a nice man genuinely trying to serve the interests of his district. I deliberately didn't bring up any issues that I knew we probably disagreed on, not wanting to engage in a pointless debate.

However, I believe the rule change I alluded to, and the congressman agreed with, would do more to improve our government's effectiveness than almost any other piece of legislation. If passed, politicians would no longer be forced to vote on three different issues with one vote. Politicians on both sides of the isle always seem to campaign on cutting wasteful spending. Think of how much wasteful spending would get cut! That is how wasteful pork programs make it through the system to begin with: by getting attached to more popular pieces of legislation. The amount of language in the recent health care bill that has nothing to do with health care would surprise you. I must say, I disagree with the congressman's assessment of the issue not being sexy enough for the media. I bet if the congressman and his bi-partisan collegues called out the selfish party leadership by name, especially members of their own party, saying they are obviously more concerned with keeping or re-gaining their power than making popular changes that would make congress and the government work better, it would get the media's attention. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn't foresee this problem because, in their day, they were forced to be in the same room when drafting and amending legislation. The media loves to call out crooked politicians that are out of touch of the needs of the voters. I bet the congressman could get the media's attention if he wanted to. I know if I were in congress, I would make this my number one issue. I wouldn't shut up about it. Because I know this ridiculous example of ignoring common sense is the base that the entire house of cards of ineffective governing and partisan bickering rests on.

More FOX nonsesnse

Last night during the O'Rielly Factor, they showed Harry Reid saying (paraphrasing) "I don't know how anybody of Hispanic decent would vote republican." Then, in the same opening, they showed an ad by GOP Senatorial candidate Ben Quayle where he says "Barack Obama is the worst President ever." Reid was called incendiary, out of touch, and insensitive whereas Quayle was bold. The same segment! You gotta love FOX.