I was picking up a growler of beer at People’s Brewing Company a couple of weeks ago when I was delighted to stumble across a couple of buddies of mine; actually one long time friend and his colleague with whom I’ve become acquainted and come to like quite a bit. They invited me to sit down for a beer and cheerfully suggested they had been talking politics and it was starting to stray into religion. Count me in!
The long time friend I have pegged as a moderate Republican who would’ve probably been happier under the Eisenhower brand than otherwise. Come to find out the other guy has politics that are probably more informed by his deeply held religious beliefs. The conversation turned to gay rights. He said, “well, the Bible says that’s a sin.” The conversation kind of ran aground there. I made a quip about the Bible also saying that eating shell-fish was a sin.
But, at that point, there really wasn’t any discussion to be had. If behavior is sinful, not because it’s inherently immoral, but because a book whose dictates you will not question tells you so, there isn’t a lot more you can talk about. I’m not going to get anywhere talking about the merits of the written down version of the oral traditions of bronze age shepherds or, for the New Testament, selected books of second hand accounts of a Roman-Era Jewish preacher.
It does bother me that gays, individuals who are every bit as human as anyone else, and who are by most accounts born into their sexual orientation, should have their lives – the one and only life any of us gets – diminished because of unflinching devotion to those tales; because of the refusal of many individuals to exercise their own, independent judgment about whether the relationships that have been declared sinful are, in fact, immoral or detrimental to society such that government should be in the business of discriminating against gay couples or offering preferences to heterosexual couples.
If a person has abdicated their own independent judgment, there really isn’t a basis for conversation. It’s like talking to a low level functionary at a call center who has only the authority to say “no.” There is no point to talking to that person; you have to go up the management chain until you’re talking to someone who at least has the authority to say “yes.” Even if that doesn’t end up being the person’s decision, the conversation is still worthwhile at that point.
Chris Sikich had an article on the Indiana Youth Group that made me think of that brewery encounter. Unlike the “Choose Life” and “In God We Trust” license plates, conservative religious types are concerned about a Indiana Youth Group license plate because, according to them, the license plate constitutes a state endorsement. The State is apparently on solid ground endorsing religious belief and a pro-life message but when it comes to a support group for gay teens, that’s beyond the pale. Apparently in the course of providing support, the group provides information about sex that’s not for procreation and not within the confines of marriage.
Homosexuality and premarital sex are sinful. The Bible says so. Because they are sinful, regardless of whether they are immoral, the State can’t endorse a group that provides information about either, let alone both. End of discussion.
Just curious why you didn’t push your acquaintance a bit further on the issue of which Biblical sins he rails against and which he commits daily (clothing with multiple fabrics? shaving?) and where, exactly, in the New Testament G-d says of the hundreds of commandments in the Old Testament, “Oh, never mind.”
The conversation did go a bit further. He went with the idea that New Testament amended the list of sinful behavior. I suggested my understanding that the New Testament didn’t have much, if anything, to say about homosexuality; particularly when compared to, say, the rich and the poor.
But, I kind of let it drop there. First, it was a friendly conversation. Second, it’s probably a little beside the point for me to be arguing about the proper reading of the Bible since I won’t be regarding any reading of the Bible as the last word on morality.
“Because the Bible says so” is pretty much the lamest excuse ever.
Exactly. Especially because the bible says everything you want/need it to say.
Its hard to believe that in 2012 there are so many hateful people in our state government. Never in my life have I seen such an attack on the reasonable Republican base. You and your right wing hates,including Hinkle and Morris have made a mockery of our party.You guys spout your right wing hate and the rest of the works thinks all Republicans are like you.The fact is that there are lot more middle of the Road republicans that the right wing haters like Hoosier Patriots.
If there is not a 100% audit of all plate accounts soon, we will know that this is purely political play by the most hateful people I have ever seen.
It’s not just license plates implying “endorsement” that bothers these folks. In 2001 they succeeded in passing a proposed constitutional amendment that would not only ban same sex marriage, but says that anything “substantially similar” to marriage “shall not be recognized”. I
And in doing so they’ve pulled a still largely unnoticed switch from what they said back in 2007. Then, chief sponsor GOP State Senator Brandt Hershman insisted that only the courts (“activist judges”) would be stopped from “making law” in this area. He and the legal opinions he introduced said the General Assembly itself wouldn’t be touched. Even the Indiana Family Institute’s folks chimed in to say that if the legislature wanted civil unions, that was a perfectly proper exercise of legislative power. It’s all very well documented for those who care to look.
But the sponsors of the current measure rewrote it (hoping maybe moderate Republicans woudln’t notice?) so that BOTH the courts AND the General Assembly (and for that matter, essentially anybody else) could give even modest recognition of “substntially similar” relationships.
Because, I guess, “sin”, as they define it cannot be recognized in any way, shape or form.
It’s the focus on only this sins that they want to focus on that drives me crazy. Poverty? Hunger? Meh. But two guys kissing. Whoa! And don’t get me started on abortion…
I thought the Bible also classified gambling as a sin, but the State has no problem endorsing casinos. Greed is also a sin, but the State promotes the lottery (and bankers). Basing governmental policies on theological notions of what constitutes a “sin” is exactly what the Founders warned against, and prohibited, in the First Amendment.
Thank you for a very enlightening post! I agree with you 100%. When people use the bible as a basis for anything they don’t like, well, then there IS no room for discussion. ‘The bible says so, end of story, end of discussion.’. Never mind that it is that person’s view – no one can really say for sure what the writers of each book meant. Plus, both bibles were written at a particular time in history in response to their world at that time. It’s sad and damaging when someone justifies bigotry and discrimination by saying ‘It’s written in the bible.’
The thing is, the Bible doesn’t say any such thing–William Tyndale’s mis-translation of the Bible says that, and the various politically-motivated translations that followed it kept it in because they liked to use their pretend version of Christianity as a justification for their un-Christian hatred of perfectly legitimate behavior just because it’s different.
Two words….Hinkle/Morris Ya your right wing Christain things working great. Your Pro Family law maker picks up teenage hookers,its all good.
The Bible is true! How do we know? Because, the Bible says so!
There is really no point in arguing with someone who would call that logic. I admire your restraint.
Let’s de-politicize license plates and return them to their original function and purpose: as easily recognizable means of identification of vehicles for public safety. Our license plates used to be boring. Letters and numbers were easily read. If groups or individuals want want to express themselves on the bumpers of their vehicles, let them use the ever-present bumper sticker. License plates can be bland and easily-read for situation in which getting a plate number is important.
I would imagine it is more difficult to read the characters among the menagarie of choices. Good policy will usually give way to bad politics.
But if Indiana would eliminate specialty plates, then the that would be just one more victory in the “war on christianity.”
For me Option #1 is one plate. (I think I suggested a campaign slogan earlier – One Plate, One Tournament, One Time; license plates, basketball, and clocks being principle preoccupations of Hoosiers.)
But Option #2 is giving groups with politically disfavored messages the same license plate treatment as other groups.
How about
Indiana 20XX
1 2A 1234
(We don’t need nothin’ else.)
As a class A shool with a Class AAA school across the county in the old format, we got shredded everytime. It got old. Win your conference and play the cross county giant. In their stinkin’ pit.
I thought the Single Class tournament issue was well disposed of in the 1990s. It see it took Tea Party man Mike Delph to reinvigorate istory. But then again, as the northern most Neo-Confederate state, the past is never dead in Indiana. It is not even past. It is not even on the ISTEP Test.
The specialty license plates, as far as I can tell, were not a critical issue till a gay youth group wanted one. Suddenly it was Armageddon and Indiana lawmakers must act NOW to save Indiana from too many specialty license plates. How many of these same lawmakers didn’t worry too much about marriage when it came to spousal abuse, adultery, or divorce (perhaps because they wanted the option to do these things?) – yet SUDDENLY marriage is in danger because gay couples want their unions to be legally recognized. Now people are arguing that the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Specialty plates and legal marriage became a major issue AFTER a gay group and gay couples asked for these things.
I want to also note that people who tell me I should be satisfied with legal arrangements like power of attorney are in legal marriages themselves so obviously they are not satisfied with simple power of attorney documents. I also question people who drive around with specialty plates on their own car, which is probably a sizable number of the state. Too many specialty plates, some of them say; don’t give a specialty plate to a controversial group. And how many of them have NRA or In God We Trust license plates?
I’m with you Doug- I strongly prefer 1 plate. I don’t want government acting as a fundraising arm for any organization (something I might have expected conservatives to grok, alas), and besides, the bumper has ample room for stickers.
But yeah, if it’s open to one, it should be open to all without qualification.
(just noticed the wingnuttery tab and i know nobody will read this !)
Masson raises another good topic – how people interact based on each others’ strongly held beliefs. On one side are what I call the weird right – people who are so anti-gay that there’s no “reaching them”, no place for dialog. Similarly I have a Baptist cousin who married a Catholic; my cousin’s family refused to attend the wedding.
On the other side, I have friends and family who in 2008 thought Obama was the Second Coming, and Bush was pure evil. I can’t reach them, just as I can’t reach someone who thinks the Bible says ‘whatever’.