|
|
| Doesn't go your way? Blame the Religious Right |
| 12.02.04 (12:39 pm) |
I'm not normally in the habit of posting responses to other blogs on my own blog, but ever once in a while I find one so outlandish or noteworthy I find that an adequate response can only be made by doing exactly that. So I'll beg your indulgence, as I ran across one today that I really think warrants a proper response, something a bit more in-depth than could be managed by a simple comment. I’m also not in the habit of discussing religious beliefs, however I thought since I was violating one long standing tradition of the blog I might as well go for broke and throw in my analysis of Homosexuality from a Christian perspective as well, in the hopes that it might provide some insight to those who are not Christian or perhaps some that are and still profess a belief that homosexuality is not a sin. Again this is not my normal practice, but considering the subject at hand I thought it might prove useful to some.
From Dr. Forbush's blog:
Networks Buckle to the Religious Right The Religious right has made an inroad to eroding the First Amendment. No, this doesn’t have to do with school prayer or mentioning God in the constitution. Instead it has to do with the right for a church to advertise on TV. The United Church of Christ wanted to run an ad on CBS and NBC advertising the fact that they are open and accepting people of all lifestyles. This means that they accept gays in their Church and they don’t call homosexuality a sin. In fact, you can get married in the United Church of Christ if you are a gay couple. The marriage may not have legal standing, but it does stand up in the eyes of God, and that’s what many people want.
But, apparently CBS and NBC don’t see it that way. Instead they don’t want to take United Church of Christ’s money for the advertisement. They don’t want to offend their audience. In other words, the religious right has managed to deny free speech to the United Church of Christ by using fear tactics. The religious right has become so powerful that the Networks shudder at the thought of offending these people. All I have to say is that the Networks need to get a spine and stand up to these extremists.
Lol.. ok, not even certain where to begin here. I think the quotation that struck me hardest was this one, "In fact, you can get married in the United Church of Christ if you are a gay couple. The marriage may not have legal standing, but it does stand up in the eyes of God, and that’s what many people want. " Now I don't presume to know the mind of God, nor would I presume to speak for Him on any subject, particular on a subject like this. But I found it rather presumptive of the good Doctor to do precisely that. He has no idea how valid or invalid such a "marriage" would be to God, only God knows that. But while I may not know the mind of God, I do have a rather good instruction manual for proper behavior that He gave to us all, the Bible. God saw fit to specifically state in the Old Testament that homosexuality is a sin, and I would have to say it's a pretty specific condemnation that doesn't leave much doubt on the topic:
Leviticus 18:22: ""'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
In fact Leviticus 18:7-23 is more or less a laundry list of sexual no-no's, everything from incest to bestiality is specifically condemened in these passages. So I think if one truly wishes to proclaim themselves as a Christian Church it's a little hard to do so when you decide to pick and choose what portions of the Bible you wish to follow. I think you'd also have a hard time making the case that Homosexuality is anything other than sinful in the eyes of God, at least the God worshiped by Christian's, since it would seem he specifically went out of his way to condemn it in the Old Testament of the Bible.
However if one wishes to proclaim themselves a follower of Christ I think it is also important to take note of how Christ dealt with sin, and with sinners. While he condemned the sin, he did not condemn the sinner. He spoke of how we needed to love each other as we love ourselves, and how we also need to be mindful of the fact that we are all sinners in God's eyes. So really I hold no ill will in this regard, the only real question for me is one of repentance. You can't really be forgiven of a sin unless you renounce it as sin and repent. So while I feel compassion towards my brothers and sisters who are lost to this sin, in truth there is little I can do for them as long as they refuse to acknowledge their actions as sinful. Nor can I really, as a Christian, tell them that which they so desperately wish to hear, that what they are doing isn't a sin. Just my own personal viewpoint as a Christian, you understand, take it for what you will.
So much for the religious aspect, now moving back to the secular world. I find it rather interesting to note that the good Doctor somehow equates the networks decision not to run these ads as an attack on the First Amendments protection of free speech. This seems to be a very common mistake made by many of those who are decidely liberal in their politics, they seem to feel that the First Amendment gaurantees some right of acceptance or the right of access to major media of some sort. It doesn't, nor has it ever done so. The First Amendent is quite clear that it merely protects your right of Freedom of Expression from government intervention.
It says nothing about a broadcaster having to run advertisements that it finds offensive or out of character with their viewing audience. That is a marketing decision that is left to the broadcaster alone, and much like a resteraunt they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Your right of free speech might mean that the Government can't step in and tell you that it is illegal to speak about homosexuality, it in no way gaurantees you that other people will want to listen to you or grant you access to a venue that will publicize your viewpoint widely. I'm quite certain the good Doctor would be the first to protest if a network decided to run paid infomercials for the KKK - and I would happily pick up a sign and join him to prevent that kind of nonsense from being put on the air.
The fact that while homosexuality might be a darling cause the left in no way means that it is popular with the country at large, and it is only good business for the networks to deny this type of advertisment, an ad which might endear them to the social elite but would likely cost them dearly in viewership in most of the rest of the nation. Nothing about that violates this groups right of free speech.
The other quote that I found so amusing in this statement was this one "The religious right has become so powerful that the Networks shudder at the thought of offending these people." Ahh, if only it were true. Sadly, however, I'm afraid the good doctor truly missed the boat on his analysis here. If the "religious right" were truly that powerful you wouldn't see the kind of morally bankrupt swill that gluts our airwaves on nearly every network. I could cite numerous examples, but I think everyone who has ever watched any prime time TV on any station can attest to the fact that the Religious Right obviously has almost no control over what makes it on network TV.
Submitted by Stepdad
|
|
|
|
| |
posted by: newbie
post date: 12.02.04 (2:33 pm)
Hello Stepdad,
I was just wondering how you created your website. Did you get Pro tblog that costs 20 bucks? I was just wondering because I'm wanting my weblog to look more official. Please let me know.
I would really like to get a sub title descriptive title under my heading like yours. plus take advantage of the sides. Thanks
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.02.04 (2:59 pm)
You wrote:
"Leviticus 18:22: ""'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.""
That's because if you lie with a man you need to go from behind. Ask anyone.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (4:32 am)
Reply to: INConservative
We have paid for the pro version of Tblog, and we used a customized template that I created using FrontPage. The archives are really little more than links to blog entries. I create a blog entry to be the "master list" of the archive, then I update that blog entry with new links as we add posts in that topic area. The link on the sidebar is just a standard html link to the static address for the archive blog entry, and the archive blog posting contains links to the static address for each of the blog posts it contains. Sadly Tblog doesn't have an "archive" feature of its own and this was the easiest way I could find to duplicate one.
Be more than happy to send you our customized style sheet and an example of the archive blog entries so you can see how it was done, or even edit the html somewhat for use on your own blog. I think it would require the pro version of tblog to use, I don't think the free version allows you to use a customized stylesheet.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (4:33 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Rather weak attempt at humor?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (7:11 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"Rather weak attempt at humor?"
No, just pointing out your misunderstanding of the Bible.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (8:50 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Lol.. ok, so it's your contention that given the context in which we find the passage, in that all of the passages around it specifically forbid other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality and incest, that this passage is supposed to be interpreted to mean that it's ok for men to have sexual intercourse with other men, it was merely added to show that such intercourse would take place in a different position?
Lol.. this can't seriously be what your suggesting, can it?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:28 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Got you to laugh twice. I guess it wasn't such a weak attempt at humor.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (9:31 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Lol.. maybe not, but then again I wasn't laughing with you Doc.. lol...
|
|
|
