Hatred is popular. Frankly, hatred has always been popular. Tragically, religious people often promote hate. The Spanish Inquisition was about hatred. The Crusades, both directions, were about hate. The conflicts in Northern Ireland were about hate. 9/11 was about hatred. Witch trials were about hatred. The Civil Rights conflicts that have taken place over the years have been mostly about hatred. Of late it has become almost chic to hate people in the gay community. Sadly much of the hatred is led by groups which claim themselves to be Christian. I won't bring myself to call them Christian because no truly Christian group can bring itself to hate. Many find great freedom by engaging in bad behavior and blaming it on God. They won't phrase it that way, but that, sadly, is often what we see.
I sense that hate is fueled by several things. Jeremiah Wright, the Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and the Pastor of Barack Obama, has an oft stated expression, "Different is not deficient." Unfortunately, much of society does see difference as deficient. If a person, or a group of people differ from me in any way, that makes them deficient. By making someone or a group of someones deficient, it 'frees' me to hate them and to look down upon them.
Secondly, I suspect that hatred of others comes because some people have a need to find their own self esteem by comparing themselves favorably to others. If I tear another person down, it makes me stand taller. Or so goes the theory.
The great tragedy of hate is that it is so incredibly unnecessary, and frankly so incredible not of God. People abuse and misquote Scripture in attempts to justify their hatred and this is, obviously, quite disheartening. People who truly walk in the footsteps of Jesus do not hate because they cannot hate.
Sadly, hatred has always been popular and remains so. We can only hope and pray for a day when people are able to move beyond it.
4 comments:
Well said.
Quite a distance, John, between hate and wanting to protect the Biblical and for all of history social institution of marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman. I won't get into the Adam and Eve argument (or Adam and Steve if you are from Massachusetts), but I have stated that I do not hate gays. Now, with that said, I also do not promote their lifestyle or hard line practices. I wish to protect the traditional family against the overly intrusive, ACLU promoted, alternative lifestyle groups. Be careful citing what Jesus did or would do in your writings. We are not to judge, only pass laws that a broad majority of Hoosiers support. By the way, are you comparing the 9-11 terrrorist thugs to social conservatives? I didn't think so!
I stand by what I wrote. Any group that brings itself to hate is not behaving in a manner acceptable to God. Much of the hatred of gay groups is led by people who call themselves Christian. It is, however, a stretch to believe that I was comparing social conservatives to the 9/11 terrorists. I don't. The terrorists were cowardly thugs. I was simply writing a laundry list of types of religious hatred.
Before citing the Adam and Eve story I'd like to refer you to Walter Brueggemann's treatise on Genesis. So don't get into it because you're going to be on theological thin ice.
Additionally, I'm not sure where you perceived that I was stating what Jesus would or would not do. I was making reference to say followers of Jesus could not hate. I consider myself to be pretty literate on the teachings of Jesus and one cannot turn Jesus' message into a message of hated without twisting words or using the words improperly forgetting the nuances of ancient languages.
Lastly, marriages, as currently defined by culture is not Biblical and not part of culture for all that long. Biblical marriages were all arranged and it was customary for people to be married in their early teenage years. Most girls were married by the time they were 13 or 14 years old.
Marriage was a social contract generally made between a father and a suitor. The father would pay the suitor a sum of money, a dowry, to marry his daughter. This exchange of money and daughter passed the ownership of the girl from father to new husband. I use the term ownership very specifically. Women were owned as was the home, the farm, and the cows and the women had the same rights as the cows. Under the law of that era a single woman being intimate with a married man made HER guilty of of adultery, but not him. Note that the story of the adulterous woman has ONLY the woman being the one who is going to be stoned. The only way a man was guilty of adultery was if he was intimate with a married man's wife, and then it was seen as a property rights violation.
Prostitution in that era was incredibly common, significantly more common than it is today. It was not illegal and under the interpretation of Jewish Law of that time, New Testament times, it was not immoral.
In Biblical times a man could kill his wife or have his wife stoned for the flimsiest of reasons.
In Biblical times a man could beat the tar out of his wife with no consequences. She was property.
This is not to mention the many times in the Hebrew Scriptures where it was one man and many wives as polygamy went in and out of traditions.
That is the definition of Biblical marriage. Bleak, at best, but very much part of the culture of that day and age.
Arranged marriages and/or marriages of convenience with little regard for monogamy were part of culture for many years and it really wasn't until the latter 19th century that marriages based on love became the foundation of society. And, of course, marriage is an institution that is always difficult as the divorce rate remains at around 50%.
Here's my point. We can create an ideal for marriage. That's nice. It's not nearly lived out that often. We still, as a society, grapple with infidelity and abuse. We observe so many people in the public eye make shams of marriage. It happens. Ideals are often not met. As a result, to define 'traditional family' is more of a dream than it is a reality.
I happen to have grown up in a traditional family. I have a brother and a sister and my parents' marriage ended when my Dad died. I take comfort that two years ago my Mom went to be with him. Very traditional household. We even had a dog.
I live in a traditional family now. I love my wife and have been with her for 25 years and have two children who are both college students. My family has no need of protection. Thanks for the offer for wanting to protect our traditional family, but we really don't need protection.
Lastly, you do need to do some more research on homosexuality. Non biased, scientific research. Homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle' or a 'choice' or even a 'preference.' It is an orientation. In years of research no one knows why people are gay. Or straight. Sexual orientation is as much a choice that people make as choosing their own gender or eye color. We are what we are.
Is it fair that one group of people who are straight can dictate how another group of people who are gay live their lives?
Is it fair that people who commit themselves to others, for life, and live long, loving lives together are denied the same rights as everyone else based on an orientation that they did not choose?
People are sexual beings. Is it reasonable for people who live non-celibate lifestyles to dictate to others that they must live celibate lifestyles, even in committed relationships?
Is it fair that people make committed relationships to others and have no essential rights as 'family?'
Before you begin making statements about what you believe about this you really need to do significantly more research than you have done. Talk Radio and some Sunday Schools classes do not cut it. There is much of what you are saying that you really do need to re-examine.
Finally, are you supporting hatred? I cannot fathom, that as a Christian, that would even cross your mind.
John - my research is complete. I have poured over the archives and can no instance of me espousing my hatred for gays. It simply does not exist.
Post a Comment