Foundational Beliefs

I saw a news article today that got my skeptical juices flowing once more. It was a story about a clerk in Indiana who was refusing marriage licenses to homosexual couples because “the US was founded on the biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage”.

There are two things wrong with that statement, and those two things get down to some foundational beliefs many have. This is a perfect example of how ignorance (not stupidity, simply “a lack of knowledge or information”) perpetuates prejudice and gives it “authority”.

1. Biblical Principle?

The first issue is the “biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage”. As far as I remember, there is only one scripture that says anything about “one man and one woman”, and that is 1 Tim. 3:2-12, where it discusses the qualifications of deacons and bishops. I’m sure if there are others someone can correct me in the comments and I’ll update this.

ohhh, so THAT's what it says!

ohhh, so THAT’s what it says!

Of course, I hear a lot about an “unspoken” biblical principle of “one man and one woman” based on Genesis; it was “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. But, of course, it would have to be; if you are going to create a new species then you need a mating pair. The example of Adam and Eve is a biological necessity, not an example of anti-homosexual sentiment. You really don’t want to use Adam and Eve as an example of “God intended it this way”, because that means God intended incest. He only made one mating pair, and yet here we are, all 7 Billion of us, so…

But if we want godly examples, let’s look at people God (the Judeo-Christian Yahweh, God of the Bible) liked. King David was a “man after God’s own heart” and he had seven wives (plus concubines, which are basically sex slaves). God chewed him out over Bathsheeba, but only because of the way he got her (arranging her husband’s death and all). And then there’s Abraham, “father of the faithful” and the “friend of God”; he only had one wife, but it was his half-sister, so if we want to talk “biblical principles”…

2. Founding Principles

It appears there is no biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage, but even if there was it has nothing to do with the Founding of the United States.

Religion not Included

Religion not Included

Of course, many of the Founding Fathers were Christian while others were Deists (belief in a Creator who made everything, set up physics and chemistry and stuff, then takes a hands-off approach–no Commandments, no Miracles, etc). But it really doesn’t matter, as they kept religion out of the Constitution. “God” is not mentioned. Religion is mentioned only to say, in Article 6, that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”.

Then there is the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Furthermore, Congress ratified the Treaty of Tripoli (peace treaty between the US and the Barbary Pirates of North Africa). In that treaty was Article 11, which said “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen…”. That means that we are not automatically hostile to you just because you’re of the Muslim religion since we are not a Christian nation.

And your Point is?

All this means that the Government has no place Legislating Religion.

The bible says that God considers homosexuality a sin: “thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination”. And the New Testament tells us that “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “effeminate” are among those who “shall not inherit the Kingdom”.

But the bible calls lots of things sin that aren’t against the law. Where is the law based on “thou shalt not commit adultery”? Where is the law against idolatry? Having private religious belief, and making the country into a Theocracy, are two very different things.

But what happens when the Government does something contrary to your Religious Belief, like legalizing same-sex marriage? If you believe same-sex marriage is a sin, don’t do it. Simple. However, if you work for the Government, you can either quit as a matter of conscience, or you can ponder Rom. 13:1-5 (Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God…), and ponder over the fact that there is no “biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage”, and further ponder the reality that the United States is not a Theocracy and give the people their marriage license.

Can Into Marriage nao? Yay!

Can Into Marriage nao? Yay!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

7 responses to “Foundational Beliefs”

  1. Black Ops Mikey says :

    So far the United States government isn’t based on the Bible. One evidence of this is that adultery is the province of civil, not criminal law — covered by contract.

    Heartburn isn’t limited to the Bible, though. Here and there, Sharia Law of the Koran is being applied. This is very disturbing. State and religion need to have solid boundaries.

    Of equal concern these days is the separation of Corporation and State: The lines are blurring to the detriment of the public. The government seems to have adopted the worst of the corporate model and implemented it badly. One day, someone is the CEO of a major corporation and the next day, they are the director of a governmental agency with oversight of the industry from which they came. This is helped immensely by the legal fiction that Corporations are “legal” “persons” to limit the damage to the actual owners of the corporation so they don’t have to take responsibility for their evil deeds destroying everyone and the environment around them with their “end justifies the means” mentality.

    Whether it is the Bible, Koran, Dianetics or the corporate model, the actual effort is to limit our freedoms according to the limited vision of those who would impose their opinions upon us as doctrine, punishable by law. The self-righteous have an entitlement to control the rest of us in a dysfunctional realm of contempt where they are the elite, even though most of them have skeletons in their closets making them abject hypocrites. No gay marriage? Fine. Impose sanctions on people who commit heterosexual fornication or commit adultery. Level the field. There are always those laws and rules in place to limit freedoms. For example, in some of the states which have been made to accept same sex marriages, people who are in a same sex marriage may lose their jobs because there’s no civil rights protections.

    Those in power are attempting to create a world which reflects their warped vision of right and wrong.

    Sadly, it seems to be working.

  2. eSell says :

    Yes, it is funny to watch the Cherry-Picking exercises; there is a Commandment (one of the Big Ten) that says “thou shalt not commit adultery”, and yet no law against adultery, nor any “Good Christian Businesses” talking about not serving those who have done the deed.

  3. BurbaniteChic says :

    Cheers!! It’s a wonderful thing that it’s now legal for us to commit “sinful” matrimony! Haha 😈

  4. tmezpoetry says :

    Thoughtful article! I have a few issues with the gay marriage debate. 1- Freedom of religion is pluralistic, meaning freedom of all religions… which also means that the Gay vs. Religion debate ignores the faith and religious freedoms of glbt. It is a media heist that someone should mention sometime. 2. At the nitty gritty here, Jesus was crucified by the Religous leaders of the day and politicians washed their hands of it. 3. For people who refuse to hand out the marriage license (out of moral conscience), I have empathy of how long they have suffered with divorced folks and remarriage- oh the trauma still to be had! Wail, weep ye nations! Sorry wrong cherry tree, but it was ripe for the picken lol.

    In a pluralistic religious society, human rights protections are important to protect from any one religion or ideology trampling on the true freedom of choice for another.

    • eSell says :

      Right, that is a good point. It seems to be assumed that LGBT must all be atheists, b/c there is “marriage equality” and “religious freedom” (to deny marriage equality); it is a false dichotomy.

      And I think the best, shall we say, “definition” of Rights that I have heard is “one person’s rights end where it begins to infringe upon the rights of another.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: