Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe vote against gay marriage amendment
John Nixon writes in his newletter:
Despite a clear statement that
Marriage is only conducted and recognized in the Orthodox Church as taking place between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. The Orthodox Church does not allow for same-sex marriages (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8083.asp),
Greek Orthodox Senators Olympia Snowe and Paul Sarbanes (the latter having been named a “Model Greek Orthodox Christian” by H.A.H.E.P. Bartholomew I) have voted today against the constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
One wonders who is giving them pastoral guidance on how their faith should impact their public service. Click here for the roll call vote in the Senate.
79 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | General |
I am deeply concerned that this question is being treated as a religious question without any perception of the political issues involved. Senator Snow and Senator Sarbanes are, I suspect, very rightly concerned about expanding federal involvement in the legislation of morals, preferring to leave that to the states, which are in our system of dual sovereignty allowed and in fact required to legislate morals. This is why there are no federal shoplifting statutes, or federal laws on jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk, or murder.
Fundamentally, the question of marriage is a state matter. Passing a constitutional amendment at the federal level to force a single definition of marriage on the several states would be analogous to Prohibition, or the 16th Amendment, which vastly encroached on individual liberties for the sake of uniformity across the nation. Remember, the temperance advocates ended up losing. I continue to believe that societal and moral force, rather than legal force, is the best way to address the question of gay marriage. I suspect Senators Snowe and Sarbanes believe this as well.
If only they felt the same about firearms.
Yes, fundamentally it should be a state matter. However, given our activist judges, it seems more and more likely that gay marriage will be imposed through judicial fiat. A constitutional amendment is a radical step, but what recourse remains?
Secondly, given Sen. Sarbanes and Snowe’s unrestrained support of abortion (they voted against a ban on PBA’s), I’m not too confident that their vote against the FMA is a principled as you outlined. They toe the liberal line on social/moral issues.
The recourse that remains is seeing if the Defense of Marriage Acts will survive constitutional scrutiny. I’m betting they will. Alternatively, supporters of the FMA can get it on the ballot by petition. Amendments do not have to originate in Congress, you know.
Does anyone serious individual think it likely that the States will call for a Constitutional Convention? This is what Ignatiev is referring to by bringing up the idea that “supporters of the FMA can get it on the ballot by petition.” Furthermore, a Constitutional Convention, as far as I understand it, does not, in and of itself, create a new amendment. It mearly forces the US House and Senate to take a vote on the proposed amendment. Any amendment passed out of a Convention would still have to be voted on by the States.
Ignatiev is also wrong by comparing FMA to Prohibition, since the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would not limit States in any way whatsoever with regards to same-sex relationships. This, of course, means that States could create civil union statutes for same-sex couples if they wanted. And if States such as Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, et al wanted same-sex civil unions to have exactly the same benefits as traditionally defined marriage, i.e., on man and one woman, then so be it. The FMA would prevent those various civil union laws from being forced down the throats of every citizen in the nation by an activist judiciary. Therefore, the Federal Marriage Amendment ensures the federalism, which you seem embrace, would be maintained. Activist federal judges will force every State to accept same-sex marriage, a destruction of federalism that I would think you would oppose.
Furthermore, Ignatiev, what makes you think that various Defense of Marriage Acts will pass constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court when various laws regarding abortion did not, and there was no more right to abortion in the Constitution then there is a “right” to marriage? Recent history is against you on this one, I’m afraid.
Ah, but constitutional literacy is against you on this one. The DMA rests on the principle, well-established, that Congress can limit how full faith and credit is granted by the several states to the laws and judicial enactments of the several states. Thus, the DMA states that no state in which same-sex marriages are illegal can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. 38 states have passed DMAs, as I’m sure you know.
These statutes, which were enacted pursuant to the FDMA passed in 1996, have not been tested. Why the rush to federalize something that has always been a matter of state law?
Incidentally, denying states the right to recognize gay marriage would destroy federalism, just as Prohibition did.
Wasn’t Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and PP v. Casey decided on a strange interpretation of the equal protection clause? If that is so then the Congresses ability to limit the full and faith and credit granted to states’ laws & judicial decisions. Also hasn’t SCOTUS given more weight to the portion of Article IV, which reads “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state”, rather than to the portion you cite, which reads, “And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
I do not believe the SCOTUS gives the Congress and the States as much wiggle room as you would on this matter. SCOTUS will use the first portion quoted above to force the states to accept same-sex marriage.
My second sentence doesn’t make sense, my apologies. What I meant to say was that I do not think the full faith & credit clause will play a big role in this matter. Same-sex marriage proponents have already put forth equal protection of the law style arguments and the legal decisions will quite likely be decided based on these grounds, just as abortion was.
It is extremely distressing to many Americans that very urgent issues affecting the lives of millions of Americans were shunted aside by the Senate Republicans so we could waste several precious days time with a phony debate over gay marriage. Is this reaaly the most imperative issue the American people face?
43 million American are without health insurance. For the first time since the Great Depression our nation has lost more jobs than it has been able to create. The price of oil is rising and our nation has no clear or coherent energy policy. Our national debt is spiralling out of control and the nation is on a path towards bankruptcy. We don’t know how we are going to fund Medicare and Social security in the decades ahead. We are bogged down in Iraq in the middle of alooming civil war, with no exit strategy and our military personnel being killed and wounded every day. Instead of preventing or preempting terrorism our national foreign policy only seems to forement more terrorism. Here at home our first responders in case of another terrorist attack are still woefully underfunded and disorganized despite claims by Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge that another attack on the scale of September 11th may be impending.
Shame on us! Shame on all of us for neglecting our nation’s urgent problems and wasting time on the frivolous, ridiculous, politically motivated Gay marriage debate.
Dean,
The foam is rising again in your comments obscuring any fundamental points you may wish to make. Also, remember, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world”.
Ha! What can Dean say? Does he really believe socializing economics like “universal health care” is a serious moral issue (except in maybe it’s prevention)?
But what about Senators Sarbanes and Snow. In what way can we say they are “Orthodox Christians”? What does it mean to recognize someone as a Christian when they so publicly and consciously reject basic Christian teaching? Have we accepted the modern American individualism to such an extant that we really believe someone is whatever they say they are? Clearly, they put their Christianity behind their Democratic Party allegiance (that “Godless” party – see http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.3docs/16-3pg23.html and the related issue). What does it mean to say one is an Orthodox Christian while at the same time explicitly supporting the murder of unborn children and other clear abominations like “gay marriage”? I propose that to call Senators Sarbanes and Snow “Orthodox Christians” is meaningless, and an affront to clear language.
I suppose universal health care is a serious moral issue only to the extent that the kind of society we have is a serious moral issue. Jesus was rather concerned about sick people, both in his public pronouncements and in his actions, going about healing people for free.
Now had Jesus taken a more sensible approach, he would have charged for his services, thus ensuring that both rich and poor had equal access to healing, as long they could pay for it. Unfortunately, Jesus was not very savvy when it came to economics, thus setting an example for us that is inconsistent with the latest and best economic thinking.
Occasionally I listen to right-wing talk shows on the radio. I’ts fun to hear right-wing hosts in back-to-back programs 24 hours a day denouncing the “liberal bias” in the media. . . .
Anyway, one day a talk show had on a right-wing candidate for the state senate. This fellow talked about his background and his personal life, including his infant son’s serious heart defect that had to be surgically corrected. What this guy described was surgery and subsequent treatment for his son that would easily have cost over $100,000, in addition to costs that will be incurred over the coming years.
Being in a perverse mood, I decided to call in to the station. When I got on the air, I mentioned how moved I was by the story of his son’s surgery, and suggested that surely having had the benefits of modern medicine made available to his son, he must be in favor of health care for all.
The candidate responded that he was not in favor of that. Rather, he approved of some program that would allow people to set aside up to $10,000 per year in a medical savings account. I was about to reply, “dude, do you realize first that if someone can save that much money in a year, they probably have a job that provides health insurance. And second, the first *day* of your son’s hospitalization would have cost *more* than $10,000.”
But the host had already thanked me for my call and cut to a commercial.
For Dean, univeral health care is a moral issue because he sees it as a way to fullfill the gospel imperative to take care of the poor. Also, by Dean’s lights, the government is the best vehicle to use to fullfill the imperative, using tax money.
Ignatiev,
You write:
“Incidentally, denying states the right to recognize gay marriage would destroy federalism, just as Prohibition did”
Federalism as a viable concept was destroyed by the Civil War. Unfortunately, those who really supported the 10th Amendment were primarily concerned with protecting slavery and later discrimination against blacks. Since states rights and slavery/discrimination are so inextricably connected in the national consciousness, any other mention of states rights or appeals to the principal are doomed.
If you are relying on any positive or useful application of the 10th Amendment, your faith is built on sand. Virtually every Federal initiative of the last half of the 20th centurty violates the enumerated powers act of the 10th Amendment including Roe vs. Wade.
There is also a fundamental difference between the marriage amendment and Prohibition,i.e., Prohibition prohibited activity and commerce that has always been largely legal. The marriage amendment affirms a cultural understanding that is under attack.
Oh, I’d still like someone to respond to my question as to the best way to reign in judical tyranny.
Jim, Ha! Now that is what the world needed, a more “sensible Jesus” and the “latest and greatest economic thinking!”. Funniest thing I have read in a few days!! Thanks!
But, getting back to the issue at hand, what does it mean to call Senators Sarbanes and Snowe “Orthodox Christian”? Is anyone, an “Orthodox Christian” merely because they label themselves as such?
Well, I’m not an Orthodox Christian, so I’m not an expert on the application of that particular label. But I find it interesting that the abortion issue has become the be-all and end-all for so many people. Do millions of people go without healthcare? Do millions around the world go hungry? Are millions living in countries in the midst of war, and sometimes even genocidal war? Is the environment in the process of being destroyed?
What of these issues? Were Sarbanes or Snowe to vote the wrong way, or hold the wrong opinions on one of those issues, would one conclude that they are not truly Orthodox? Very unlikely. Why is that?
In the case of Sarbanes and Snowe, as far as I know they are not having abortions nor do they recommend abortions.
The issue here is whether an Orthodox Christian, especially a politician, not only has to personally follow the moral teachings of the Church, but in addition has to do everything maximally possible to promote, encourage, and instantiate the moral teachings of the church in the larger society, regardless of *any* other considerations. For example, should an Orthodox politician promote breaking off diplomatic relations with any country that permits abortion?
To me, that does not seem like a reasonable obligation. Or, if it is an obligation with respect to abortion, is it then an obligation with respect to all other moral teachings?
Does such an obligation also extend to theological teachings as well? For example, should an Orthodox politician promote legislation that would eliminate tax exempt status for all non-Orthodox churches, so as to fight against heretical teachings?
In other words, is there some general principle that is supposed to govern the activites and votes of Orthodox politicians, or is it simply that a special exception is carved out for abortion?
Last week business in the US Senate was brought to a halt for three days in order to discuss an amendment to the US Consitution prohibitting same-sex marriages. Now same-sex marriages may or may not a menace to society, but the fact is this debate was nothing more than a cheap political stunt.
With the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) firmly in place, the prospect of the United States federal government sanctioning gay marriages is extremely remote. As long as DOMA stands a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriages is redundant and unecesary, and the need for such an amendment is based on a remote and hypothetical possibility that at some time in the distant future DOMA could be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Lawsuits seeking to establish the legality of same-sex marriage would have to be argued in state courts. State court decisions upholding same-sex marriages would come into conflict with DOMA, resulting in federal cases, which would have to proceed from district courts, to appellate courts and on to the Supreme Court. This entire process could take years, and the outcome is highly uncertain.
It was the approaching election and not an approaching court decision that caused Senate Republicans to push more urgent business aside and attempt to bring the Gay Marriage amendment to the floor. As Karl Rove no doubt advised them, it is a great wedge issue to make Democrats squirm while distracting the media and public from our failed foreign policy and sputtering economy.
Orthodox Christians are called by our Church to a life of worship and repentance within the Church. Due to our complex history of interaction with monarchical and totalitarian governments, the Church, to my knowledge, has ever articulate a clear perspective on political interaction in a democratic society. I think that this blog helps in that direction.
Senators Snowe and Sarbannes are in direct violation of specific Church teaching with their advocacy and toleration of abortion. If they are not willing to repent of their violation, they should not be receving communion. To the extent that they live a life of worship and repentance within the Church they are Orthodox. Their public activity would seem to suggest they are not.
Abortion is a critical issue because it is murder of innocents. It has been offically prohibited since at least the third century.
War: The basic response to war within Orthodoxy is that it should only be prosecuted for a just cause. We have many soldier saints who were martyred, not for their refusal to serve in war, but either because they refused to kill other Christians or refused to sacrifice to Caesar. Whether to we go to war or are called to the path of martyrdom, we are called to a path of laying down our life for our brothers.
The Orthodox Church has always given aid and comfort to the poor and continues to do so in a variety of ways. Some of the very first hospitals for the poor were established by St. Basil the Great in the 4th century. In all of the discussions of the topic here, helping of the poor has never been the issue. The issue is the appropriate and necessary function of government. It is a sloppy debating trick to equate limiting the use of tax money for health care with not caring about the poor. It is also a fallacy that health insurance equals health care. They are different, but obviously interrelated. There are many structural problems in our health care system, most of them, in my opinion, exacerbated or created by government intervention. Just throwing tax money at the problem will not solve it. All one has to do is look at our education system to see the fallacy of that.
I am one of the uninsured–unable to qualify for individual insurance, working for a small employer who cannot afford a grouop plan, I am able to put aside almost $7000 a year in a flexible spending account.
The FMA was most definitely being used by our President and many Republicans to cast Democrats as a party who supports “those people”.
Morals shmorals. Perhaps I, as a taxpaying citizen, have an issue with my money being used to subsidize Bob Barr’s third (and Biblically invalid and adulterous) marriage. The irony is that he was the original sponsor of DOMA.
Divorce is and has been an exponentially greater threat to marriage than gays ever could be, and it affects the lives of millions of couples and their children every year, yet I see little or no interest on the part of even the most conservative religious groups to move towards restricting this via civil law or Constitutional amendments.
The FMA was most definitely being used by our President and many Republicans to cast Democrats as a party who supports “those people”.
Morals shmorals. Perhaps I, as a taxpaying citizen, have an issue with my money being used to subsidize Bob Barr’s third (and Biblically invalid and adulterous) marriage. The irony is that he was the original sponsor of DOMA.
Divorce is and has been an exponentially greater threat to marriage than gays ever could be, and it affects the lives of millions of couples and their children every year, yet I see little or no interest on the part of even the most conservative religious groups to move towards restricting this via civil law or Constitutional amendments.
Josh:
Even so great as an authority as St. Basil the theologian recognizes that third marriages may be permissible, but no more than three marriages are allowed to a Christian. For to lose one wife is tragic, and two unfortunate, but three smacks of carelessness.
Mr. Bauman:
While the Court may have killed the Tenth Amendment (which, IMHO, is not true, given Lopez and Printz), the Full Faith and Credit clause has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. Even if the FDMA did not exist, states may, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, refuse full faith and credit to any judicial or public acts of another state if they violate the public policy of the state. Commonly known as the public policy exception to Full Faith and Credit, this argument at least lends extra weight supporting the constitutionality of the FDMA.
Josh,
Not too sure what Bob Barr has to do with the FMA, but the purpose of the vote was not to cast Democrats as a party that supports the gay lobby (everyone knows that it does), but to find out which Senators support gay marriage. This is an important thing to know, particularly before November.
You are correct about the wider dissolution of marriage in the culture, but wrong about social conservatives (not “Republican” neccessarily) not being concerned about it. All the creative work (analysis, etc.) is coming exclusively from the socially conservative side. Check out the Heritage Foundation, the Marriage Project, etc.
Heterosexual marriage/divorce however, isn’t of constitutional concern, although liberal divorce laws need to be revisted. Homosexual marriage has become a constitutional question solely because of judicial activism. If your implied concern about the fragility of traditional marriage is carried forward, you ought to oppose gay marriage as well since it will undermine the value of marriage even further.
Jim,
General principles are matters of discussion, debate and consensus, while abortion falls under the seventh commandment. The prohibition against abortion is a non-negotiable, a closed question in the Orthodox moral tradition. So yes, these senators, since they profess to be Orthodox Christians, are expected to work against the expansion of abortion in society.
I thought Democrats were against the use of force but perhaps that is only when the force is to protect us from being blown up. Forcing employers to offer health insurance will just mean fewer people hired at lower wages.
Remember this Dean, burn it into your brain cells. Everytime the government puts mandates on health insurance the number of uninsureds goes up. I am a classic example. From an economic standpoint the health insurance market is inelastic therefore any price push drives folks out of the market. Government mandates push up prices.
I would love you to respond to the specifics of my earlier post.
While my personal situation is a worry, I do have supplemental coverage that will cover the most extreme situations, and I will be able to get coverage with the Kansas high risk pool if I ever really need to. I just can’t see paying the $800/month for me on a monthly basis and another $800/mo for my wife which would rob us of the ability to pay for our preventative care.
To be honest, $7,000 is not even going to cover many routine procedures. Even a routine day surgery can cost well over $7,000. Routine outpatient treatment for some conditions can run well over that, not counting pharmaceuticals. For a truly catastrophic illness, forget about it; $7,000 dollars is not even pocket change. $7,000 only works as long as the person doesn’t get very sick or injured.
In the absence of health insurance, a medical savings account is a lot like driving a car without a seat belt. As long as you have nothing more than a little fender-bender, everything’s fine.
Concerning “socialized medicine” . . . . There’s a lot of that going around, even if people don’t admit it. As far as I’m concerned, the objection to “socialized medicine” is essentially meaningless. It’s one of those phrases, such as “liberal,” that’s supposed to invoke a negative reaction, but doesn’t really mean very much.
For example, the personal situation that Michael describes is a classic example of socialized medicine. He works for an employer who cannot provide health insurance. This means that if anything goes seriously wrong with one of the employees, someone else picks up the tab. After the employee’s own resources are exhausted — which can happen the first hour of the illness or injury — someone else is going to pay. That’s either going to be the hospital or some federal or state program. If the hospital eats the cost of the unreimbursed care, what that means is that those costs are actually shifted over to the other payors.
Thus, through not providing health insurance for employees the employer is able to shift the costs of serious or catastrophic illness to someone else. It also gives that employer a competitive advantage against employers that do provide a health benefit.
This, of course, is in addition to Medicare and Medicaid programs, without which yet other tens of millions of citizens would be without health care. If you want to have some fun, next time a politician denounces socialized medicine, ask him if he supports the elimination of Medicare.
Again, the thread has been pulled back into a discussion of the merits (of the very meaningful phrase) socialized medicine.
But back to the issue at hand.
Jim,
since you are not an Orthodox Christian, I would be curious as to your Faith’s understanding of abortion. Does your Faith recognize it as murder of an innocent human life? Where does you Faith place abortion, in comparison to other commandments like feeding the poor, recognizing of course that feeding the poor does not = collectivist economics/governmental income redistribution (as Micheal apptly put it “It is a sloppy debating trick to equate limiting the use of tax money for health care with not caring about the poor. It is also a fallacy that health insurance equals health care.”)?
Well, I can tell you what I think about abortion. The fact is that I don’t have very solid views on the subject. It’s clear to me that a newly fertilized ovum is not a person, and that a nine month old fetus is. I don’t have a metaphysical detector that tells me when or how personhood happens. (And yes, I’ve heard all the arguments on both sides, and yes, there is a great deal about my position that is unsatisfying and unclear and potentially wrongheaded.)
In other words, I think I probably look at abortion as many of the people in the country do — don’t like it, don’t recommend it, think that it’s overused and that there should be some controls in place. That puts me on the wrong side of the issue for the pro-choice activists. But I don’t necessarily see all instances of abortion as murder. That puts me on the wrong side of the issue for the Orthodox. And I certainly don’t want government abortion police in charge of the process, which puts me on the wrong side of the issue for the right-wing. Big fan of birth control, which puts me on the wrong side of the issue for Catholics. So I’m just on the wrong side all over the place, and the only people who agree with me are tens of millions of people in the U.S. But because of the polarization of the issue it’s been years since there has been anyone to advocate for our position.
Now concerning the phrase “socialized medicine,” that’s a phrase that almost exclusively is used to shoot down some proposed reform, especially reforms that approach the issue from a comprehensive, systematic point of view. I mean, just to label a proposal as “socialized medicine” is to administer a fatal wound, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Other than shooting down possible reforms, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard the phrase used.
Somehow in the current healthcare discourse the idea of a single-payor system is considered socialized medicine, whereas Medicare is not. Having a state tax-supported program of health insurance for working but uninsured people is considered socialized medicine, whereas having state tax-supported teaching hospitals pick up the tab for healthcare for working but uninsured people is not.
Actually if you seperate out administrative costs from medical care expenditures, a much higher percentage of your Medicare dollars go to actual medical care than do your private health care dollars. Administrative costs represent about 5% of all expenditures for the Medicare program, but range between 10% – 15% of all expenditures for HMOs and private insurance. The Medicare program has no counterpart to Leonard Shaefler, the CEO of Wellpoint-Blue Cross, who for past few years has received an annual salary in excess of $17 million.
A medical biller for a physician group was recently quoted as stating that she had to be familiar with over twenty different methods for filling out a medical claim form, for the same service, depending on who the insurance payer was.
Jim,
Actually, I have a certain respect for your position on abortion. It’s very American, and very modern. You say:
“It’s clear to me that a newly fertilized ovum is not a person, and that a nine month old fetus is. I don’t have a metaphysical detector that tells me when or how personhood happens.”
You come from the “Show me” state (Missouri) on the when it comes to the sanctity of life. If you can’t comprehend it rapidly with one of your five senses then you doubt it exists at all. That said, traditional Christians, as opposed to secularized/modern/liberal ones like most Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and many (most?) Methodists and Lutherans, DO have a “metaphysical detector”. This is of course the Revelation of God through His only begotten Son, and His life giving Holy Spirit. This Revelation is explained and expanded upon in His Holy Orthodox Church, through Holy Scripture, etc. We, that is believers, are to apply this Faith to ALL areas of our life, including the public square. As Michael mentioned in a post above, part of the reason this site exists is to explore/discuss/clarify how we are to do this.
Which brings me to ask why are you here? Really, why do you post? You make it clear that you are not an Orthodox Christian, and from your post above it is clear that you do not reason from anything approximating a traditional Christian thought process. This of course is your prerogative, but why do you bother to come here to a site that is so clearly and explicitly Christian (the web address is after all “Orthodoxy Today”)? Before anyone chastises me let me make it clear that I certainly do not want Jim to “go away”, I am sure that even if I did Father Jacobse would ask me to “go away” before he would Jim. I am sincerely interested in what Jim’s personal reasons are for posting. The subject of the thread is two allegedly Orthodox Senators publicly voting for something anti-Christ, and Jim wants to talk about “universal health care”, why he believes phrases like “socialized medicine” are meaningless, etc. etc. etc. Why? Clearly he does not have much to say on this particular vote or why we as Orthodox Christians would want to discuss it. He simply does not have anything of real value to contribute, unless of course it is a modern/secular/liberal approval. But we clearly do not need that – that is what we are responding/objecting to in a limited context of two supposedly Orthodox Senators.
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head and perhaps Jim will confirm or deny them. One, Jim is a marginalized/secularized Christian who is searching for a more robust expression of the Faith. Two, he is a liberal gadfly who delights in arousing negative responses from those who disagree with him. There are of course other reasons, but I for one would like us to sincerely examine why most threads on this list are degenerating into propaganda for/against collectivist economics…
Christopher, fair questions.
Chapter 1 – My Background. Former fundamentalist whose involvement in fundamentalism lasted around 10 years. Fundamentalist beliefs began to fall apart. Went to college, married 5 years, divorced, life fell apart, depressed and suicidal several years, antidepressants, recovery. Had beliefs that were more-or-less Buddhist. Remarried ten years, second wife went crazy and she had to go live in the desert. Don’t ask, I don’t understand it either. Married again, through extraordinary circumstances. Began to sense presence of God in life, began to see that my worldview was in a significant sense Christian even though my official beliefs often were not.
Chapter 2 – This List. Knew Fr. Hans from years ago, before he was Fr. Hans. Have been in touch with him occasionally and have read several books that he recommended. Generally disagree with him on social and political issues, but like the way he thinks about theological issues. Read through his web site occasionally. Eventually noticed the “blog.” Read the blog. Noticed that comments could be posted. Posted comments. Don’t know what Fr. Hans thinks about me posting comments here since I never asked him.
Chapter 3 – Orthodoxy. Like many things about Orthodoxy. Unlike fundamentalists, believe that Christianity is only comprehensible through the Christian tradition. Unlike the Orthodox, Christian tradition and I argue with each other. But find myself in the strange position of defending Orthodoxy against fundamentalist attacks on other lists. Have never been to an Orthodox church, except once for the Greek Festival. Occasionally attend an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal church. See many things in Christianity as true in a mystical sense, though perhaps not in a literal sense, but find that mystical/literal distinction becomes less important for me.
Chapter 4 – Fetuses. Have fathered 5. All died, three singletons through tubal pregnancies, and twins through fetal death at 2 months. Probably influences my belief that fertilized eggs are not persons, as nature seems to treat them more as supplies than as assets.
Chapter 5 – Orthodox Senators Thread. Relationship of Orthodox politicians to rest of society not well-defined. Have not found arguments here to be persuasive. General principle of how Orthodox politicians should relate to a largely secular government is under-developed and needs more work if you want to be taken seriously.
Chapter 6 – My Involvement On This List/Blog. Heck, I don’t know. If uniformity of opinion is important, I’ll go somewhere else. If variety is valued, I’ll hang out for a while. Never really thought about it, but just kind of got “sucked in” by the discussions, as quality of discussion here is usually better than other lists to which I subscribe. Open to suggestions concerning continued involvement. Do not wish to offend.
Hope that helps.
Jim,
Interesting! Also, I do owe you a bit of a retraction because looking back I see you did post some good questions which were on topic, like:
“should an Orthodox politician promote breaking off diplomatic relations with any country that permits abortion?”
and
“in addition has to do everything maximally possible to promote, encourage, and instantiate the moral teachings of the church in the larger society, regardless of *any* other considerations.”
By the way I would probably answer both questions in a way that would make pragmatists/secularists squirm. I do believe you are right on about how the Church counsels it’s members who are politicians being “under-developed”. That said, both Senators know enough to not have voted for “gay marriage” or any abortion legislation. They are not listening to what counsel they are receiving.
I am expressing a certain frustration that most of the recent threads have degenerated into discussions about the pros/cons of collectivist economics. As important such topics as health care income redistribution are, they just don’t rate that high in an Orthodox Christian’s attempt to live God’s Will, even as that Will is lived in relationship to culture and practical politics. Some things come before other things, and between Dean and yourself who bring up the issue at most every turn, whether appropriate or not, I believe it is starting to degrade the very quality of this blog you speak of. I also have wondered whether some of the disagreement is not in origin a disagreement with basic Christian dogma. To me, if one is going to argue with basic Christian dogma on a site titled “Orthodoxy Today”, well, then one is simply being contrary. I think Dean does this to some extant, because I do not believe he accepts the dogma of the Church concerning abortion. In any case, I would suggest that as regular daily posters, we try to honor Fr. Jacobse topics by actually discussing them, and not our own pet causes on every thread.
If you do decide to go to an Orthodox service, whether Holy Liturgy or some other service (e.g. vespers), you might want verify that the church does at least a significant portion of the service in English (my parish for example does all english). I know too many people who were “turned off” by Orthodoxy because they attended a service that was in Greek, or Slavonic, or some other language. Have you ever heard of a book titled “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church” by Vladimir Lossky? That book might be right up your alley right now, though he does not pull any punches when it comes to dogma either. Another fine book around Orthodoxy that I am just finishing up right now is St. Theophan’s “The Spiritual Life; and how to be attuned to it”. It is a very dangerous book, because it takes what seem like impenetrable mystical truths of the Fathers and shows how they are “relevant”, how they are real, to Modern Man’s hardened and chastened heart. I don’t know if I have ever really understood the Fathers theological anthropology until I read this book. I don’t know if I have every truly wept for my sins, but St Theophan has come the closest of anyone in convincing me I should if I only would. St. Theophan pray for us!!
Looking back over the thread, I notice that the first drift in the thread related to gay marriage. Health care was introduced by Dean as an example of one of the many issues that could be considered more important than gay marriage. In response to that, you actually introduced the phrases “socializing economics” and “universal health care” into the discussion, perhaps interpreting Dean’s comments as implying that.
You mention that the issues of health care and income redistribution don’t rank very high in Orthodoxy. If you look at the gospels, you will see a large number of instances of healing by Jesus, in addition to a number of direct expressions of concern for the poor. Throughout the Old Testament, there are almost countless references to the poor, and a number of other references related to economic justice. It appears that as the ancient Jews transitioned from an agrarian to a more urban-based society that issues related to poverty and the distribution of wealth arose. The bottom line is that there are so many passages in the Bible related to poverty and compassion for the poor that it is difficult to count them all.
But what’s happened is that in the 60s issues such as poverty and health care became the “property,” if you will, of the left. As the left aligned itself with the pro-choice movement, pro-life people aligned with the right. Thus, abortion became the “property” of the right.
The result is that for many politically conservative Christians issues related to poverty and economic justice simply do not show up on the radar at all. For many of my former fundamentalist colleagues it is as if the many poverty-related verses in the Bible simply do not exist, even though they hold that the Bible is “inerrant.” Regardless of what the Bible says, to talk about issues of wealth and poverty is to be perceived as a “liberal.”
On the other side, a similar thing has happened with abortion. If you say that you oppose abortion, it is as if you just joined the 700 Club and pasted a “Bush/Cheney 04″ bumper sticker on your forehead.
In other words, what I’m trying to say is that these social and moral issues exist not in isolation, but within a certain political context, and they invoke an entire platform of other issues. The key to making progress on such issues is not to harp on them and beat up people who vote the wrong way. Rather, the key is to change the political context in which these issues exist. As long as a concern for the poor is seen as implying “vote Democratic,” the right is not going to take it seriously. As long as pro-life advocacy is seen as being shorthand for “vote for Bush,” the left is not going to take it seriously. It seems to me that Christians have an opportunity to stake out a position on social and moral issues that cuts across both political parties, thus making these issues perceived as centrist rather than as left and right. This also would mean that Christians were holding positions that were consistent with the whole of the tradition, and not just part of it. The verse “blessed are the peacemakers” also comes to mind here.
Thanks Jim! As a Democrat who feels the Democratic party needs to stop dancing around the abortion issue and start talking about how to reduce the number of abortions I share that “out in the wilderness” feeling. John Kerry needs to stop being so cautious and have a “Sister Soulja” moment with the “abortion on demand” extremists of the far left.
Similarly, I know that there are Republicans out there deeply disturbed by problems such as homelessness and hunger and alarmed by the growing gap between rich and poor. I’ve worked with them as volunteers, they are my friends, and I respect them as some of the finest people I know.
However if any Republican politician these days dares mention helping the poor, Grover Norquist, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Christian Coalition all promise to be there to demonize that person, punish him, and push him out of office. T
Two years ago, Governor Bob Riley, the Republican Governor of Alabama called on his fellow citizens, in Jesus name, to support a proposition to raise taxes on corporations, the rich and middle class, so that the state could lower taxes for the poor and provider better social services to the needy. Alabama’s tax rate for the lowest tax bracket is the highest in the nation. Conservative spokeman Grover Norquist, rallied conservatives to “make an example out of him”, and ironically the Alabama Christian Coalition worked to defeat Governor Riley’s Christ-inspired proposal which later failed to win a majority of votes.
Dean, perhaps you could point out where Christ taught “take from those who have, so we can give to those who do not”, or as someone else said, in a much more pithy manner, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
Daniel: There are perhaps no more references from Christ than about poverty.
1) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man. No mention of Lazarus having been particularly virtuous; all he had was his poverty.
2) “It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven”
3) To the young ruler, “Give all you have to the poor and follow me.”
4) “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God … But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”
5) Parable of the goats and the sheep. “I was hungry and you gave me no food.”
Myself being one of the “have’s”, my point is not to condemn anyone, but merely to highlight the fact that if as a nation we are to embody Christian values with our laws (as in the case of “Christian” marriage), it should have at least some interest in social justice, considering Christ’s repeated and emphatic views on this which seem to take precedence above all other social issues.
Christ acted sympathetically to the woman taken in adultery. Nowhere did he grant this same kindness towards the indifferent.
Not sure I follow you here. Obviously there are many passages in the Bible that talk about concern for the poor. It apparently was also a major concern of Jesus. You appear to imply that since there was no explicit teaching of Jesus to care for the poor through modifications to the tax system, that such a thing would be . . . unchristian? Inappropriate? Inconsistent with the gospel? Some clarification would be helpful.
Jim, Dean, and Josh,
There you go again!! You just did it again!! You just spent an entire series of posts trying to convince those who know better that Church calls for collectivist economics and income redistribution, and more importantly off are again off topic!!
Jim,
I will be blunt: Your fundamentalist days did not teach you very much about the Church, or for about Jesus for that matter. Your trying to relate Jesus’ Mystical Revelation of His Divinity to “economic justice” is just plain ignorant. even your amateur sociology like “It appears that as the ancient Jews transitioned from an agrarian to a more urban-based society that issues related to poverty and the distribution of wealth arose.” is not even worth refuting. You trying to convince us that the sin of abortion should be tied to “these social and moral issues exist not in isolation, but within a certain political context, and they invoke an entire platform of other issues” reveals a very modern and very un-Christian view of man and polity. All this would be ok if this thread were about this, but it is not. Are you trying to offend? is that your goal here?
Dean,
Do you have anything else to say besides then repeating the Democratic party platform? The site is not called “Democrats Today” as you well know. You will be directly and explicitly voting for the American holocaust in November, which is on your conscience, which is no doubt why you feel “in the wilderness”. You should pay head to your conscious, and try to educate yourself as to why collectivist economics are not “Christ inspired”. But we have already been up and down about the collectivist economics. Are you trying to offend, is that your goal here??
Ok Christopher, let me address each point separately:
“Your fundamentalist days did not teach you very much about the Church, or for about Jesus for that matter.”
—————————
I agree.
“Your trying to relate Jesus’ Mystical Revelation of His Divinity to “economic justice” is just plain ignorant.”
—————————-
There are a very large number of passages in the Bible that deal with the poor, the stranger, the widow, the orphan, etc., and poverty in general. Rather than taking the time to list all of these, I assume that you are familiar with them. Perhaps you can tell me in what way you think one’s views — especially a politician’s views — on these issues should be shaped by these passages. Let me put it this way: when I read the gospels and the many other passages in the Bible that have economic implications, it does not seem to me that a libertarian version of economics finds much support there.
Perhaps you’re reading more into my comments than what I actually mean. Please note that I’m not advocating communism, or confiscating the assets of the rich. I’m suggesting that one’s view of economics should be influenced by the many compassionate passages in the Bible that relate to this issue.
” . . . even your amateur sociology like “It appears that as the ancient Jews transitioned from an agrarian to a more urban-based society that issues related to poverty and the distribution of wealth arose.”
——————————-
Oh, this was from a semester-long college course in Biblical Literature, History, and Thought, and also from a couple of other books. Actually, I should have said “nomadic,” rather than “agrarian,” but I doubt you’d feel better about that. If you’ve read something different, I’d be interested to hear it. I thought it was a pretty non-controversial statement.
“You trying to convince us that the sin of abortion should be tied to “these social and moral issues exist not in isolation, but within a certain political context, and they invoke an entire platform of other issues” reveals a very modern and very un-Christian view of man and polity. All this would be ok if this thread were about this, but it is not. Are you trying to offend? is that your goal here?”
————————————
I’m saying that if you want to deal more effectively with this issue, it would help to deal with it in a more politically neutral context, in a way that makes it more of a centrist issue and brings more people into the center, so as to make it less of a Republican or right-wing issue.
If you want to keep it a right-wing issue, that’s Ok, by me. But here’s a question: Is that working?
The original topic of the thread was senators voting against the gay marriage amendment, not abortion. In either case I fail to understand how my remarks about how the political context of an issue affects the perception of an issue are off-topic.
Frankly I’m a little confused as to what kind of discussion is expected here. Is an actual exchange of ideas acceptable, or are the comments supposed to reflect a standard party line? I feel like I’m getting a little beaten up over some remarks that seem pretty innocent to me.
Jim,
You have confirmed that you are here to irritate, insult, and offend. I personally will not be reading anymore of your posts…
Christopher, I’m sorry that you find my posts offensive. I have tried to give some honest information on my background, and to present issues that I felt were relevant to the discussion and in keeping with the discussion themes. Apparently my efforts were not successful. So my apologies. But trust me, if you think my posts were offensive then head over to the hard core fundamentalist or heathen discussion groups and you’ll find out what offensive is. My stuff is milk and cookies by comparison.
Christopher,
Back off a little. Thread’s get off topic all the time as corollary issues occure to folks. I do have to apologize for rising to Dean’s bait on universal health care. Sorry folks!
Jim, I for one welcome your participation. I have never noticed any “party line” here although folks do get “het up” from time to time.
One of the many reasons was attracted to the Orthodox Church in the first place is that she does have answers to all the important questions, that those answers are available to any one who chooses to find them. The answers are ground in the nature of man, our communion with our Creator and the expression of that communion, the Church. Consequently, we need not be defensive about any questions or challenges that arise.
Now to approach the topic of Orthodox Christian politicians and how they should vote whether the topic is abortion, homosexual unions, government programs for the poor, etc. As Christians we are called to a transformative communion with our Lord, Jesus Christ and through Him with one another. As we participate in that communion, our thoughts and actions become more Christ like. Such Christ like people will act in harmony with the teachings of the Church because they are informed by the indwelling Spirit of God. Since such freedom should be the norm for Christians, “marching orders” are not necessary. Of course, to the extent that our actions reflect our fallen nature rather than our transformed nature, repentence is needed.
Again I think the real issue here is the nature and extent of government. The Orthodox Church has always maintained that the purpose of government is to provide order in the world which allows for the action of the Church and her individual members. Since the governments under which the Orthodox Church has lived for most of her history have been monarchical (at best) very little thought has been given as to how to function in a more egalitarian form of governement such as we have in the United States. However, it is a safe bet that politicians who are members of the Orthodox Church should be acting in accord with at least the most basic and fundamental teachings of the Church. Abortion certainly is that. Abortion is an evil that has to be resisted by everyone
In other moral areas there is distinction that needs to be made between what the Church expects of her members and what she expects of those outside of the communion. Unrepentant homosexual behavior cannot be tolerated within the communion, but can be to a certain extent outside the communion. Care for the poor is an obligation for all Christians. So a government should reflect these values
However, I once again must assert that no where in the Gospels or Patristic teaching is the government the prime agent of Christian virtue. Dean especially keeps confusing the function of the Church with the function of government.
In general those who cry so hard for a just society, seem to have myopia when it comes to the opportunity an justice already in the United States. We are by almost all criteria the most just, society the world has ever seen–largely due to the effect of the Christian message on invidual people who have choosen to act on them, in and out of government.
Michael: I would like to respond to your criticism that I confuse the roles of the church and the state. There are plenty of instances where the Bible instructs rulers to care for the poor.
The Pentateuch provides at least five important provisions:
1. The third year tithe was to go to poor widows, orphans, and sojourners, as well as the Levites (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12).
2. Laws on gleaning stipulated that the corners of the grain fields and the sheaves and grapes that dropped were to be left for the poor, especially widows, orphans, and sojourners (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-21).
3. Every seventh year, fields were to remain fallow and the poor were allowed to reap the natural growth (Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:1-7).
4. A zero-interest loan was to be available to the poor, and if the balance was not repaid by the sabbatical year, it was forgiven (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35-38; Deuteronomy 15:1-11).
5. Israelites who became slaves to repay debts went free in the seventh year (Exodus 21:1-11; Leviticus 25:47-53; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). And when the freed slaves left, God commanded, their “temporary master” was to provide liberally, giving the former slaves cattle, grain, and wine (Deuteronomy 15:14) so they could again earn their own way.
These were not suggestions for voluntary action charity since they required a central authority to oversee their implementation and/or enforcement.
Yale Theology Professor Ronald J Sider writes, “..what role should government play? The earlier discussion of the economic components of justice is central for a biblical view of the role of government: “The Lord…has made you king to execute justice and righteousness” (1 Kings 10:9, Jeremiah 22:15-16). And these two key words—justice and righteousness—refer not only to fair legal systems but also to just economic structures. Again and again the biblical texts call on the king to promote justice and righteousness.
According to Psalm 72, there are oppressors of the poor separate from the state who need to be crushed. State power, despite its dangers, is necessary for society because of the evil power of such exploiting groups. “On the side of their oppressors there was power,” Ecclesiastes 4:1 declares. Without governmental force to counter such oppressive power, there is no one to comfort (Ecclesiastes 4:1). Whether it is the monarch or the village elders (Amos 5:12, 15), governmental power should deliver the economically weak and guarantee the “rights of the poor” (Jeremiah 21:12, 22:15-16.”
You made the observation earlier (I didn’t forget)that one should not confuse compassion, with support for a compassionate government. I completely and totally agree. Christ calls on us to help those in need through our personal actions foremost. Need isn’t only defined as economic need but would include people suffering from loneliness or illness, as well. In his novel “Bleak House”, Charles Dickens, the original Bleeding Heart, lampoons the idea of “telescopic philanthropy”, that is concern for people far away but indifference for people nearby, as a satirizes a woman who raises money for African natives while neglecting her own children and husband.
So while I support the concept of a compassionate government I agree with you that it can never take the place of persoanl compassion.
Michael,
Do you not grow tired of repeatedly deconstructing secular and anti-Christ arguments? Dean and Jim have proved that they are not here to discuss these kinds of issues within an Orthodox (Orthodox being the operative word here) context. They repeatedly assert the same secular thoughts, despite the fact that they have already been answered. Again, I point out that the site’s title is “Orthodoxy Today”, not “Roman Catholicism Today” or “Orthodoxy responds to incorrigible non-believers Today” or anything of that sort. It is reasonable and good to have all sorts of input, but when that input is against the spirit and purpose of the site, surely we can point that out and ask that it be limited. Jim and Dean deserve an answer, even two or three, but once they have them they should then go to the “Secularism Today” site and discuss them ad nauseam if that is what they wish to do. I maintain that Jim and Dean have crossed the line, willfully and knowingly, and are here only to bait you with their pet causes/beliefs. This is intolerable for me because these pet causes are not even remotely Christian.
Do you Michael, or some other reader know of a site that discusses cultural issues within an Orthodox Christian context? Perhaps a moderated site where people are given reasonable boundaries (I am thinking of something like Monachos.net – but they however stick with doctrinal issues only)?
Christopher, the original thread deals with Orthodox senators voting against a particular constitutional amendment that would effectively prohibit gay marriage. In my reading of the opinions of various Orthodox Christians on this isssue, both here and in other venues, I have not seen a definitive “Orthodox opinion” emerge. Many Orthodox Christians seems not to be very concerned about gay marriage, since their church already does not allow it in the first place. Others are more offended but not threatened by the idea, and yet others see it as the end of marriage as we know it. In other words, in the Orthodox community there seems to be a variety of responses to this issue ranging from indifference to great concern.
In your original post you raise the following issue: “But what about Senators Sarbanes and Snow. In what way can we say they are ‘Orthodox Christians’? What does it mean to recognize someone as a Christian when they so publicly and consciously reject basic Christian teaching?” You conclude that “I propose that to call Senators Sarbanes and Snow ‘Orthodox Christians’ is meaningless, and an affront to clear language.”
In other words, based on their votes on this issue you imply that they are not Orthodox Christians. But this is an opinion that I have not heard from other Orthodox Christians, and thus appears to be a rather drastic position. In addition, I have not heard of any specific teaching of the church that instructs politicians on how to vote on such issues, or any evidence that they violated such a teaching, if it exists.
In addition, you note that “Clearly, they put their Christianity behind their Democratic Party allegiance (that “Godless” party . . . ” But Snowe is a Republican, not a Democrat. Looking at the ACLU’s evaluation of Snowe’s and Sarbanes’ voting records as a measure of their liberalism or secularism, we find that Snowe votes with the ACLU only 22 percent of the time, and Sarbanes only 44 percent of the time. So these people are not exactly flaming liberals. In addition, both of them voted for DOMA.
In summary, with respect to their votes on the gay marriage amendment, your criticism of them as being inappropriately called “Orthodox” just seems wrong to me. I say this based on 1) overall voting records that do not appear overly liberal
2) prior support of DOMA
3) no clear concensus (that I can detect) in Orthodoxy on the threat or lack thereof that gay marriage poses to the rest of society
4) no explicit church teaching on how politicians are supposed to vote on such issues
If you read this, I would be interested in your response. I trust that you will find this post on-topic, consistent with the purpose of the site, and written in an attempt to stay within an Orthodox framework, inasmuch as an outsider is able to do so.
Christopher: You are assuming that the Orthodoxy is synonymous with conservative political ideology, when in fact Orthodox Christianity rises above and transcends all partisan political agendas. The difficulty in equating morality with one’s position on just one or two issues (abortion, gay marriage) is well illustrated by this week’s news that Congressional Republican’s have decided to let the assault weapons ban expire this month. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) recognizes gun violence as one of our nation’s leading causes of death.
Certainly respect for the sanctity of human life recognizes the moral imperative of addressing unnecessary and preventable violence that that threatens human life.
Assault weapons are not used for hunting and have no purpose except taking human life, often the lives of police officers and other law enforcement officials. In the hands of gang-members and other criminals guns that can spray dozens of bullets in seconds are extremely lethal, and often kill and injure bystanders as well as intended victims. When the assault weapons prohibition was first discussed in Congress our nation’s leading experts on public safety spoke out in favor of the legislation, and former President George Herbert Walker Bush was one of its strongest advocates.
Catering to the Gun lobby, Congressional Republicans will be responsible for a relaxation of the laws that increasing the loss of human life resulting from gun violence. Isn’t that what Republicans like to accuse Democrats of, choosing special interests over human life?
Jim,
In terms of the morality of gay marriage, the Orthodox view against it is definitive even though some Orthodox here and there might support it. IOW, from the Orthodox standpoint, to support gay marriage (and other particular issues such as abortion) puts the supporter in conflict with the moral tradition. The tradition won’t change, at least on the moral questions already closed.
See the Bishops statement on gay marriage, for example.
Dean,
Everytime an assertion of yours is challenged, you shift the ground or change the topic. It’s getting tedious. The overall theme seems to be a defense of the liberal political agenda, which you certainly are free to do, but not here. Frankly, some of your posts seem like a repeat of talking points that I hear from the talking heads on cable.
Most of the contributors here have given up on liberal politics and culture. We just don’t buy it anymore and we are not really interested in hashing through all the reasons why. There are plenty of other sites that do that. Actually, a better road to take would to be to read some books like Thomas Sowell, Robert Nisbet, and others. Study the French Revolution. That’s where it all began anyway. Sozhenitsyn argued that Rosseau is the father of modern totalitarianism. More on this some other time.
So, I agree with Christopher although my frustration level is higher than his seems to be. In any case, try to stay on task. Again, if you want a forum, you can start your own.
One other point. Totalitarianism is not “an aspect of Communism.” The defintion of the term “totalitarian” does not allow this distinction. Totalitarianism means all aspects of human life are swallowed up by the machinery of government. It cannot exist as an “aspect” of ideology. Totalitarianism is the ideology, thus Communism = totalitarianism.
The failure to see this (if I am not misunderstanding you) is troubling. Either you don’t know the true nature of totalitarianism, or you don’t know Marxism’s historical record, or both. For the record, every Marxist (Communist) regime has always been totalitarian, no exceptions.
There is a path for Orthodox Christians to take, which if done in the correct spirit after much prayer and fasting would be an appropriate response–we could give up outward resistence to the secularist/amoral agenda. We could thereby concentrate instead on the three pillars of the faith, prayer, fasting and amlsgiving. If we took such a path out of fervent love for God, not out of cowardice or apathy, it might have more of an effect than “taking arms against a sea troubles”. Do we engage the enemy openly with loving confrontation, or to we take the “stealth” path. As much of the back and forth on this site demonstrates it is easy to loose your cool and your center when faced with the maddening irrationality of the secular materialists. I would certainly place Dean in the secular/materialists category, despite the fact that he attends an Orthodox Church. So, yes Christopher, as far as Dean is concerned, I’m tired. He has show no interest in a conversation based on exploring the traditional moral teaching of the Church. One last comment for Dean–the governemnts referred to in the majority of his citations were either explict theocracies (equatable to the Church) or monarachies. The kind of government action Dean advocates either requires or will lead to a massive and strong central governement. Without the mandate given to Israel and the restrictions given by faith such a government can only become tyrannical.
Actually I have been going out of my way to find common ground with everyone else who comments here. I have been trying to meet people half way and indicate that I recognize and accept the validity of their statements so that I am not perceived of as intolerant or inflexible. I have even added several of you to my prayers to remind me that you are good and decent human beings that I should not attack, but interact with as respectfully as possible.
I’m sincerely sorry and genuinely troubled that my comments may have bothered anyone, and beg your foregiveness. I continue to pray that I may find a way to join your debate without causing distress.
My Hellenic ancestors believed that the path to truth was through philosophical inquiry and continuously asking questions. One of them even asked so many questions he was asked to drink a glass of hemlock. I come from a tradition that has never been comfortable being handed a box of beliefs and told to just accept them. As a boy I watched my father in the garage take machines apart and put them together again so he could undertand how they work. Similarly I believe its a useful exercise to deconstruct arguments and beliefs and examine them as well, so we understand how they work. Examining the components of my Christian faith leaves me increasingly moved and humbled by the awesome love of God who is the radiant core of all the goodness in the universe.
Fr. Hans writes:
“Everytime an assertion of yours is challenged, you [Dean] shift the ground or change the topic.”
——————————-
If I may venture a comment . . .
Perhaps because I find some of Dean’s comments consistent with my own views, I have a somewhat different interpretation of his remarks. Granted, I have not followed the discussions here very long. But it seems to me that recently Dean is basically arguing for a more inclusive and comprehensive view of social ethics. In other words, he says in effect, “yes, gay marriage is an important issue, but here are these other important issues as well that have not been a part of the discussion.” Yes, some of these issues would be considered “liberal.”
For example, he recently mentioned the expiration of the assault weapons ban, certainly a liberal issue. Well personally, I disagree with him. I don’t think the assault weapons ban is particularly effective, and as a long-time holder of a state concealed handgun permit, I don’t find gun restrictions particularly appealing. Nonetheless, I think that Christians can legitimately be interested in such issues, and that someone who takes the example of Jesus seriously can adopt a point of view contrary to mine on this issue.
Father Hans: “Most of the contributors here have given up on liberal politics and culture. We just don’t buy it anymore and we are not really interested in hashing through all the reasons why.”
——————————
With all due respect, I think that people on all sides of the various issues need to start looking for common ground, because the alternative is a balkanization of the political landscape. Unfortunately, we’re probably already there. The conservatives can’t afford to give up on the liberals, and vice versa. We don’t have that luxury. What has happened is that individual issues have congealed and hardened around particular ideologies. When that happens, people begin dealing at the ideological level rather than at the issue level, and people end up either buying into the conservative “package” or the liberal “package.”
So we end up with liberals who are basically very compassionate people who no longer even consider the most reasonable arguments on the pro-life side. We end up with Christians who are pumped up about gay marriage, but poverty and environmental issues have fallen off the radar. In the end, we all lose.
From a practical point of view, a church or religion that aligns itself with a temporal political party or ideology is eventually going to be burned. The political folks make use of the support of the religious folks, but ultimately the religious folks are a tool to be used for the purpose of acquiring power. The gospel reminds us that “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light,” and surely this is no truer than when religious people hitch their wagon to any political party.
And another practical consideration is what happens if the favored party loses power. Were the Orthodox to align themselves with the Republicans, what happens if Bush & Co. get the boot? That could be a very long eight years if you haven’t developed friends on the other side.
I have noticed that whenever the concern of “poverty” arises, that it is automatically translated into an advocacy of “communism” or “collectivism,” or “socialism,” or some other -ism. I would like to suggest that the way the Bible deals with poverty goes far beyond any -ism, because as Dean correctly noted, the gospel transcends any particular party or ideology.
My introduction to the issue of poverty came when I began to be involved in the local Hispanic community. Without going into great deatail, I can only say that anyone who can walk into a migrant labor camp, see the conditions in which these people live, and not be moved, has a heart of stone, whatever his or her religious beliefs. Anyone who can stand in the slums of Juarez, Mexico and talk to people who work for 80 cents an hour in American border factories — people who live in shacks made of scrap cardboard and wood, who drink water from discarded industrial drums, whose children die from easily treatable diseases, and be unmoved, has a heart of stone, whatever his other virtues.
The Psalms teach that “Blessed is he that considereth the poor.” A quick check of the concordance lists a number of meanings for “consider.” These include to give attention to, consider, ponder, to have insight, have comprehension, to cause to consider. Concern for the poor may not be fashionable in some political circles, but as the Psalm says, it brings with it its own blessing.
Jim, on a personal level I am sure your concern for the poor is genuine and authentic, as it should be. So is mine. So is Dean’s I would venture. I’m just not interested in rehashes of the liberal agenda that, all too often, does precious little for the poor on either an individual or social level. Social conservatives like me just don’t buy the sell anymore.
Part of this is my own experience of course. I helped establish what became the largest private foodshelf in Minnesota. The church in Minneapolis still cooks for AIDS patients monthly. Who where the chief antagonists? The liberal poverty lobby. It took personal intervention by the conservative mayor of St. Paul (and now the Republican Senator of MN) to call off the dogs.
It’s the same with abortion. For all the talk of crisis pregnancy, all the help services are run by pro-lifers. Pro-choice help stops at the back door of an abortion clinic.
Like I said, I don’t buy all the claims of compassion and concern from the left. Too many empty words. Too many specious ideas hiding behind them. I don’t know how else to say this except that I don’t believe that the left cares for the poor. Some liberals do obviously, but not the political and ideological left. They just say they do.
But then in what sense does the political and ideological right manifest concern for the poor, and for many other issues? Where I live, the agenda of the right is 1) lower taxes; 2) less of most any public service; 3) fewer limits on business; 4) the anti-homosexual legislation or initiative du jour. (Not much on abortion, since that’s fought more at the federal level.)
That’s about it. It’s libertarian economics combined with whatever socially conservative concern is popular at the moment. Without debating the merits of the libertarian agenda, I’ll just say that it’s not clear to me how it helps to support the poor, the sick, or anyone who is not already doing well.
For example, where I live the right has actively supported cutting or eliminating the state health plan, that provides health coverage to working but poor families, many of whom live in rural areas and exist barely at the poverty level. Again, using tax money to pay for someone else’s health care is certainly not consistent with libertarianism. It is true that tax money can be wasted. But it is also true that if you’re going to have a health program, it requires funding.
And thus for any particular social issue, where I live the solution of the right is to lower taxes, cut services, and replace the services with rhetoric, some kind of ineffective or crippled program, or no program at all.
And for the right in my neck of the woods, the main sin is to vote to raise taxes, advocate raising taxes, or suggest raising taxes. There simply is NOTHING worse than this. I mean, you could vote for abortion, homosexual rights, and gay marriage, and they won’t like you. But if you vote to raise taxes you will be denounced and villified from one end of the state to the other — even if you’re a Republican.
But in the minds of many of the local Christians here, this is all consistent with the gospel. And thus we have to ask what effect association with the political right wing has on the theology of believers who align themselves with it.
As a kind of perverse recreation, I like to listen to the local “Christian” station’s talk radio program. From listening to this program, I have discovered that Jesus doesn’t like labor unions, but He does like corporations, facts that I must have missed in my reading of the gospels. I also discovered that a true Christian opposes immigration, and that all Mexicans should be returned to Mexico, by force if necessary. Of course, even the Holy Family at one point had to flee to a different country, and then there are all those verses about compassion for “the stranger.” But to the person of faith, those are not relevant. And the poor . . . well, the poor simply are not mentioned. The Bible is filled with talk about the poor, but the true Christian is unmoved by it, and the topic simply never comes up.
So pardon me if your skepticism about the left is matched by my skepticism about the right. The liberals do indeed advocate and rehash the tired old solutions, many of which, as you say, do precious little for the poor. But at least they are not actively working to dismantle the programs and protections that remain.
Jim, you neglected to mention that besides being rabidly pro-Republican, Jesus also subscribes to “Guns ‘n Ammo” magazine.
Kidding aside, in regards to Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe, can one disagree with or disbelieve any one article of faith (whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic) and still consider themselves a member in good standing? There are those who truly love their faith but consider it an act of violence against their own intellects to adhere to tenets they don’t believe. I realize that Eastern and Western traditions differ regarding birth control, for example, but I know many devout RC’s who simply don’t believe that its use is “evil” within marriage. Should they be excommunicated from the flock?
Perhaps the senators don’t even disagree with Orthodox policy on marriage but simply on what the most effective and just policies regarding it should be or even what the proper rule of the federal government is in social issues.
Christopher:
I am speaking not only about the Orthodox stance on social issues but on all matters relating to dogma and doctrine, whether it’s the presence of Christ within the Eucharist or the role of Mary in the salvation of man.
I’m not sure what the expectation is: for us to say, I don’t believe A=B, but the Church says A=B, so it must be so and I will therefore agree to this truth? Isn’t this a lie?
Let’s take another example: drugs. I’m firmly opposed to them and it’s well known by anyone who knows me. Let’s say that the official Church position is that drug abuse is a sin and should not be encouraged by their legalization. Now let’s say that I have a friend/loved one who is dealing with this addiction. Would I be thus sinning by not turning them in and instead tried to help them in some other way (paying for therapy, counseling, etc.)? After all, what does it serve to believe in the criminalization of drug use if I won’t follow it up in practice?
If you believe this, you have an extremely narrow and myopic view of Christian charity.
My point regarding Senators Sarbanes and Snowe is that as Orthodox Christians, they probably believe in the ideal (!) of one man, one woman united for life. I’m sure they are good husbands and fathers and have many virtues. That they don’t believe that amending the Constitution is the best way to save marriage does not mean they are reprobates.
Josh you ask a good question at the end but let me address first things first. You ask:
“I’m not sure what the expectation is: for us to say, I don’t believe A=B, but the Church says A=B, so it must be so and I will therefore agree to this truth? Isn’t this a lie? ”
Yep, it’s a big fat lie that the person who says this is living. They are living their own self-willed truth (i.e. A does not = B when the Church clearly teaches A=B). Let’s take the issue at hand. This is what the Church says about marriage (taken from the Bishops statement):
“The Orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, 2000 years of church tradition, and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of a man and a woman, and that authentic marriage is blessed by God as a sacrament of the Church. Neither Scripture nor Holy Tradition blesses or sanctions such a union between persons of the same sex.”
Now, if that is not what the person believes, then they are not a member of the Body of Christ in good standing. They are thinking/living their own lie – which possible because of their God given freedom (that “terrible” freedom as the Fathers put it). However, they are not following the Truth on this.
Drugs: I am not sure what, if any, is the Church teachings on this. Perhaps you can choose another example where the Teaching is explicit – or inform me as to what it is here. I will say this, as one who has dealt intimately with drug and alcohol abuse, I thank God they are illegal. Without the righteous punishment of the state, I know several people who would have continued down that perditious road. However, I am willing (God help my unbelief – the part of me that is not willing) to listen to the Church on this issue if you or anyone else knows what it is.
You ask:
“After all, what does it serve to believe in the criminalization of drug use if I won’t follow it up in practice? ”
It serves nothing. Action follows belief. You would be living a lie if you do not follow it up in practice.
You say:
“My point regarding Senators Sarbanes and Snowe is that as Orthodox Christians, they probably believe in the ideal (!) of one man, one woman united for life.”
Really, what’s your evidence? The evidence I have before me indicates that they don’t – they voted against it.
You say:
“I’m sure they are good husbands and fathers and have many virtues”
What does that matter? Does the good man get into heaven? How do you define “good” here? The man who leaves people alone, does not impose “his will” on anyone, believes all people are equal, does not hurt anyone – is this the good man you are talking about? If so, this man does not get into heaven – unless, unless he ALSO submits his own will to God and takes up his cross and follows Him. Following Him means believing in and following His Holy Church. This means following the Holy Teaching and Tradition of His Holy Church. This means, well, you know what it means.
You say:
“That they don’t believe that amending the Constitution is the best way to save marriage does not mean they are reprobates.”
This is true. They could have a serious disagreement about means. However, amending the constitution does the job without harm to anyone. So they better have a good plan, and they better be able to convince the Church that they are right. And, most importantly, this plan better be compatible with the Church and not part of say, a collectivist ideology, or some other anti-Christ philosophy. Like the Bishops say:
“As heads of the Orthodox Churches in America and members of SCOBA, we speak with one voice in expressing our deep concern over recent developments. And we pray fervently that our nation will honor and preserve the traditional form of marriage as an enduring and committed union only between a man and a woman.”
So, what is their plan? I bet they don’t have one. I bet they were towing the liberal (that “Godless party” of which they are a part of) line. I bet they have no intentions of helping our nation “honor and preserve the traditional form of marriage” because they don’t believe the nation should. But that is libertarianism, or secularism, reductionist egalitarianism, or some such other Godless philosophy. That is not the teaching of the Church. Yep, in all likelihood (though I would examine evidence to the contrary) they are reprobates. You see, you are right. It is much more likely that they believe A=C, and not A=B as the Church teaches. This is why they are reprobates.
Given that, how do I, as an Orthodox Christian, think about and respond to their moral error?
“I bet they were towing the liberal (that “Godless party” of which they are a part of) line.”
Christopher, in the off-chance that you read this, you may want to note that Sen. Snowe is a Republican, and amend your diatribe accordingly.
The point isn’t whether one is Republican or Democrat. The point is examine the ideas behind the positions. Comments like “Guns and Ammo” don’t do any good either, except perhaps to show how far discourse can degenerate.
Further, the only criticism of Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe is the support of partial birh abortion, a grievous moral error according to Orthodox moral tradition. Whether they happen to be good husbands, mothers, whatever their personal character, is not relevant to this discussion.
Avoid emotionally charged phrases like “act of violence to their intellects.” Argue instead the reasons why you think the position is right or wrong. Phrases like this never say much except except to hammer home the fact that disagreement exists. But we already know that otherwise we would not be discussing it.
If my attempts at humor seem offensive, apologies.
In regards to this Amendment, the Senators did not vote to allow gay marriage or even civil unions. They simply did not act to expressly forbid it. There’s a subtle but very important difference.
I am guessing as to their motives, but as Republicans, perhaps they simply feel it to be within the jurisdiction of the States to decide on matters of marriage as it is with many other matters, whether it’s gambling or the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Perhaps they felt that the Constitution is not the proper vehicle for creating federal social policies, preferring to vote against it should the issue arise within their own states.
The role of morality in law is more complex than is acknowledged. Alcoholism is considered a sin (St. Paul includes “drunkards” in his list of those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God), but it does not stand to reason (at least to me) that a faithful Orthodox believer must be a prohibitionist or that intoxication within one’s own home is cause for a jail sentence.
Would you conclude that an Orthodox believer must not only abstain from excessive alcohol consumption himself but must
lobby for the criminalization of alcoholic beverages and boycott stores who provide them? Considering the enormous toll alcoholism takes on the health care system, not to mention the number of deaths every year from DUIs, this is not a minor issue and I think the analogy to the social tolerance of gay unions is worth mentioning.
Josh, your assertion that Snowe (as a republican) is more concerned about states rights than basic Christian morality is without evidence. What is your evidence?
My assertion that she is a reprobate is based on this and her votes on the American holocaust – which she supports. She is fundamentally confused about her Orthodoxy, or she is not really Orthodox. Josh, are you Orthodox?
Also, all law is morality. It is a moral judgment to punish murders, and to stop at red lights (anarchy = bad, order = good, red lights = good). Your analogy breaks down at the beginning because God made wine to “gladden men’s hearts”. Wine, like many things in this world, can be used for both GOOD and BAD. Sodomy, can ONLY BE USED FOR BAD. Josh, can you name one instance in Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition where homosexuality is encouraged or tolerated in moderation (like wine)? Just one Josh, and that will prove that your analogy holds and perhaps that, as you say “The role of morality in law is more complex than is acknowledged.”.
Since you will not be able to (I know, it is was a loaded question
. I would ask you Josh, what is it about the teaching of the Church, and the Truth of God, that bothers you in these sorts of cases where His morality is relatively simple? I would ask you to examine why you wish to push a false “complexity” into a simple ‘problem’. Does your faith (you don’t seem to be Orthodox to me – correct me if I am wrong) recognize ‘sin’, and if so, is sin complex or simple according to your faith?
I am not Orthodox, and sin is not simple to me.
You have mentioned somewhere (I believe it was you) that you enjoy engaging in the sport of boxing. Now, the physical action of pummeling someone until they are unconscious would seem to me to be an evil action. However, this same physical action becomes less an evil when consent is involved with both parties, even more so when hatred (racial, class, or otherwise) is not playing a role in the act itself. So intent, lack of malice and consent have just reduced an IDENTICAL physical act (that of physical assault) from a greater evil to a lesser one (or even a moral good as I’m sure you would argue).
Same act, different degrees or levels of moral culpability.
Also, all law is NOT morality. Law exists to protect the common good. It’s against the law to jaywalk in some areas. Certainly you would not argue that it is also somehow a sin?
Josh, since you say you are not Orthodox, but do seem to admit some sort of vague definition of sin, is it safe for me to assume that you are Christian?
I do enjoy the sport (sport being the operative word here) of boxing, but I have not been a boxer myself for a number of years now. I am too old-and-slow now to even be allowed to fight in an Golden Gloves amateur event, even if I wanted to! I am however a competitive Jui Jitsu player (Japanese wrestling – Jui Jitsu translated means “gentle art” or “gentle way”). Interestingly, my boxing coach from years ago said something that I believe to be the essence of the martial arts. He said “You can not control the other guy until you control yourself”. In other words, your feelings, thoughts, and lastly your physical actions all have to be disciplined. St. Paul of course uses the athlete as a prototype and example in Holy Scripture. You are right, I don’t consider competitors in sports, whether boxing, or football, or badminton, to be doing anything “immoral”, but they can be misused like so many things in this fallen world. The majority of the men and women I wrestle with are police officers and corrections officers (jail guards) who use Jui Jitsu to safely restrain violent criminals.
I see your point though, and Holy Tradition would agree with you that intent (lack of malice) does play a part in discerning if an act is immoral. However, where in Holy Tradition, or Scripture, does the act of sodomy or homosexuality come under the rubric of a “lesser good”. Never, it is always an evil. And that is the point is it not, that Revelation (which we believe to be the very Truth of God) can not abide with these sorts of abominations, even as we love the sinner. So, if your point is that an allegedly Orthodox senator has the room in her faith to say to herself “because the intersection of Faith and action, Faith and the public good, the Truth of God and law, is a complicated and difficult place to be, I can vote against the FMA – besides, secularists and liberals don’t really like it because it is against their faith” then your argument just does not hold up. As the Bishops stated clearly, such thinking is not part of the Faith. Now, it might hold up in your faith/philosophy (whatever that is – you have not said), but that begs the question as to why you are making such an argument on a site called “Orthodoxy Today”?
As to jaywalking – the “public good” is a moral argument. To say something is good or bad is to have a morality, whether it is public or not. All law IS morality. Perhaps we need to go to the dictionary to define the words “good”, “bad”, “morality”, “law”, etc. And yes, it is a sin to knowingly jaywalk if you know that it is illegal and against the public good (or more likely, against your own good since you are more likely to get run over by a bus when you do not follow the traffic laws and step out onto the street – I bet getting run over by a bus does not feel too good!!:). Do you wish to have a discussion of how ‘sin’ is defined and thought about in our Holy Orthodox Faith?
By the way if you are struggling with the notions of morality, public and private, tolerance, etc. I recommend almost any of the books by J. Budziszewski (J.B. is sometimes seen linked to in the advertisements on the home page of this site – coincidently named “Orthodoxy Today” if you did not notice). As a good Aristotelian (and a Christian) he will help you sort out your thoughts if nothing else.
So here we are, post #63, and instead of discussing how an Orthodox Christian should think about and respond to the obvious errors of two allegedly Orthodox politicians, all the electronic ink has been spilt dealing with secular and anti-Christ arguments as to why the error might not be an error after all, at least to the secular and anti-Christ mind. Hum, I am starting to see a pattern here…
Jim,
Nowhere has it been argued that the Orthodoxy way is Republican, although it has been argued that present day Republicans are much closer to the received moral tradition on the life issues (abortion, infanticide, euthanasia) than present day Democrats. This in no way implies a full moral congruence, and no one has argued that it does. I don’t recall anyone saying either that Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe are “moral reprobates.” If they did, they are wrong.
On the other hand, it would be a mistake to read Fr. Hopko’s warning as an endorsement of moral and intellectual relativism, which, to my ears, is Dean’s position at times. There is such a thing as a hierarchy of values (are you listening Josh?) where things we might disagree with are left alone knowing that the cure can be worse than the disease. In other words, Fr. Hopko’s warning does not imply that all moral issues have the same public gravity and leaving one wrong untouched does not mean we are disallowed from touching on other wrongs.
OK, I found the reprobate reference. Christopher, it’s too strong a term, and worse, it’s not accurate. Also, it avoids the fact that in other areas these Senators have voted for the public good.
So now Fr. Hopko is being said to support liberal and secular thought against the Faith?! That’s amusing…
Fr. Jacobse, I have said that Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe are moral reprobates. Looking up the definition of reprobate (http://www.m-w.com/),I see that one of the definitions is “to foreordain to damnation” which is not what I meant (that’s what Calvin meant
. I did however mean it in the sense of “to condemn strongly as unworthy, unacceptable, or evil”. I of course stand by my assertion that Sens. Sarbanes and Snowe are reprobates by evidence of their votes in favor of the American holocaust, and against the FMA. These votes are clearly unworthy and acceptable to any traditional Christian, and are evil.
There comes to mind a more difficult question which, although admittedly purely speculative, is interesting nonethless to even someone with an Orthodox pov:
There are certainly marriages that are for whatever reason never consummated. What should the Orthodox position be towards gay couples who, whether because of physical handicap, illness or choice simply choose to never engage in the “behavior” but nevertheless wish to share their lives together and receive some legal safeguards to protect a relationship that they cherish above all others? On what moral basis are those to be refused?
Are the legal benefits of marriage only to be granted when sexual activity is guaranteed? We would have to deny marriage licenses to the impotent or to the castrated (by birth or accident).
****
So the question remains: what should an Orthodox Christian layperson do regarding the two politicians? The way I see it, they have really only 2 options:
1)Weigh the relative importance of this issue against other issues as voted upon by these same politicians and decide that this issue outweighs all others. By all means, if one reaches this conclusion, then they should vote against them in the next election as their conscience dictates.
OR
2)Determine that this issue is of lesser importance and vote for them again, though perhaps expressing one’s personal disapproval of their vote by sending them a letter.
The Orthodox clergy on the other hand have the option of a public reprimand, or discipline up to and including excommunication. (Not too many options for either group, unless I’ve missed something obvious?)
What you seem to imply is that no politician is permitted to in any instance vote in a manner that opposes the dogma or decree of the Orthodox Church. Is not the Church then forced to take a very explicit and narrow view on every aspect of government policy, from taxation to war, from guns to gambling to state legislation of all matters personal and private?
Whatever one’s view of fornication between an unmarried couple is, I’m not sure the Church would be wise to force their faithful to push for the criminalization of such conduct upon pain of excommunication. Likewise, I would venture to say that the Church as an entity may have a moral view on the Iraq war but may permit some disagreement on its relative merits within its members.
I will agree that the Church is acting within its power and right to distance itself from members who have acted atrociously and grossly misrepresented Her. If that includes excommunication or the refusal of Communion, then so be it. However, it should be executed after much deliberation and only rarely. Abortion could be one of those issues, but I’m not persuaded that gay marriage is a threat to the public good in such a way that such actions would be mandated.
Well, the fact the term has this ambiguity of meaning is reason enough to avoid it given the emotional wallop it holds. How is your reader supposed to interpret the term and thus your meaning?
I think Jim’s implied objection has some validity (even as he deftly recontextualized the emotional power of the term). It’s a bit over the top.
Josh, have you read “The Clash of Orthodoxies? Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis?” It is one resource that can answer some of the questions that you have.
I will look it up… I certainly am not an advocate of anarchy and for those of use who are not saints, we unfortunately need civil law to negatively motivate us from committing wrong.
The question of the effectiveness of law in creating moral men is intringuing, however, as is how encompassing the law must be to help accomplish that.
On your last point, you would enjoy the book “Statecraft as Soulcraft” by George Will, particularly his discussion on how law also shapes moral sensibility (just as moral sensibility shapes law).
Also, where the book “The Clash…” really shines is explaining how heterosexual marriage can be on the only functioning marital relationship in a culture. Your questions presume that homosexual marriages can be modelled on heterosexual monogamy. You have to examine this presumption more deeply. Start here: Redefining Marriage Away. (One of the authors, Robert P. George, is the author of “Clash…”)
Further, you have to take into account that if homosexuals should be allowed to marry because because the prohibition against homosexual marriage violates their civil rights, then anyone who is prohibited from alternative marriages (bigamy, etc.) can make the same claim. And they will.
BTW, you can order “Clash…” off the main page.
Fr. Jacobse,
I would be open to any term that would correctly describe the moral status of voting for late term abortions, and against the FMA, when said person is an alleged Orthodox Christian. Honestly, the terms I can think of do not sound “pretty” to secularized ears. Since I don’t read Jim’s posts my response by way of proxy was unfair.
Josh,
Skipping over your “life boat” ethical situation of the marriage status of eunuch and such (perhaps that’s what this thread has been missing all along, a good and hearty discussion of the marital status and potentiality of such a union, of the eunuch! HA! ROFL!;), I want to thank you for staying on topic and your good summary of possible reactions to the Senators. I would add that I would think some response by the laity to their Clergy and Bishops is in order. I think we should let the Bishops know that we do support them in upholding Orthodox Tradition and teaching, even in the public square. Ultimately, I believe it will have to come down to the Bishops publicly excommunicating those who so clearly and publicly repudiate the teaching of the Church. Here, one almost longs for the structure of the Roman Curia that has the institutional momentum to overcome sinful doubts and despair (Almost, I said almost
.
To add to Fr. suggestion about your questions surrounding Faith and action in the public square, why do you assume that is the Faith that is narrow and unbending? As you put it
“Is not the Church then forced to take a very explicit and narrow view on every aspect of government policy, from taxation to war, from guns to gambling to state legislation of all matters personal and private?”
Have you ever read Rawl’s “A Theory of Justice”, or any other serious modern liberal account of how we are to deal with ultimate questions in our relations with each other? The Church, having true anthropology – that is knowing what man really is scientifically – is the truest way to live and relate to each other. To me, it is reductionism materialism and the liberal political theories of man that grow out of that philosophy that is truly narrow, truly stifling to mans freedom and potentiality in both “public” and “private” life. They reduce all of man and morality to a Kantian category and/or Epicurean tragedy. As G.K. Chesterton said (of orthodoxy with a small “o”, meaning traditional Christianity):
“People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom — that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”
Josh, do I gather from your use of “Church” with a capt. that you are a traditional and/or liturgical Christian (meaning Latin or perhaps Anglican)?
Christopher writes: “So now Fr. Hopko is being said to support liberal and secular thought against the Faith?!”
Not, not at all. However in my reading of him, it seems to me that he would disagree with your view of the relationship between faith, social policy, and politics. But read on:
Fr. Hans writes: ” . . . it would be a mistake to read Fr. Hopko’s warning as an endorsement of moral and intellectual relativism . . .”
Yes, you are quite right. In my reading he’s making a very subtle and mature argument that I interpret thus: the Church must avoid identifying itself with any particular ideology or party. But the Church must also not accept a relativistic approach, in which *any* ideology is acceptable. In addition, the Church must not become “other-worldly,” in which it is insulated and separate from the world. In other words, he advocates a relationship to the world that insists on the values of the church, but does not explicitly mandate how those values are to be instantiated in the larger society.
This may be a little off-topic, but on a personal note, this is an example of the kind of thinking that makes me respect the Orthodox approach to faith, even though it is not my tradition.
Christopher:
I was actually raised Roman Catholic but have found myself leaning away from it for many reasons. However, I still appreciate its consistency in matters of morality and its ideals which, while unattainable for most of us, seem to strive for absolute purity of charity and faith. The danger is that it does indeed approach legalism at times.
I understand the Church’s requirement of celibacy, and I believe it does enable many to live lives of greater service. Ideally, that is. Unfortunately, this requirement has had many negative effects on those in the clergy who lack the psychological and emotional maturity to live up to this ideal.
Same thing for birth control. If you argue that sex is for procreation, the Church’s opposition to contraception is a reflection of its consistency in these matters.
Perhaps my problem is that there is nothing wrong with maintaining ideals. I don’t believe, however, that to fail to live up to those ideals is always evil or sinful. Perhaps just less perfect. The virtue of generosity and the vow of poverty is a great thing for those who have made such a sacrifice for the good of others, but I don’t think that to “have” is bad, either.
Father Andrew Greeley had a very interesting column last week entitled, “When Catholics can vote for a pro-choice candidate”, on the issue of how morality should influence our choice in the voting booth. See http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/Acurrent/greeley.htm
Greeley argues that Catholics and other Christians may vote for John Kerry as long as they are not voting for him specifically for his pro-choice stance, but have made their choice balancing and carefully weighing a number of moral issues.
And according to the article, that is not just Fr. Greely’s position, but Cardinal Ratzinger’s as well.
But Dean, to be fair, one should note that that principle works both ways. For example, Christians could also vote for Bush as long as they are not voting for him specifically because he led us into a needless, inept, and expensive war, massive deficits, undermining of the environmental laws, and so on.
I’m hoping someone can answer this:
Gay couples can leave their belongings to each other via a will (as can anyone, including a woman to her cat). They can achieve joint ownership of property. A power of attorney can grant certain decision-making powers to their partner as well.
Let’s say we invented a new “civil contract” called a “McGoogle Contract” (no laughing please), and let’s make all of the above achievable through this one contract, including the survivor benefits, etc.
So now instead of getting a will, filling out a POA form, etc, all they have to do is share this lovely new convenient “McGoogle Contract” (we’re not calling it marriage). Nothing has changed in essence. Yet, many would be opposed to this new contract.
Am I missing something? On what grounds is the objection? All we’ve done is eliminate some paperwork. Granted, they would not be eligible for ALL marital benefits, such as Social Security, etc. Certainly this is about more than protecting SS, though.
I’m not a lawyer but it seems that there is no funtional difference between your super contract and the laws governing heterosexual marriage. All current statutes would have to be rewritten to reflect the authority of the super-contract, a monumental task that would take years to flow through the courts. It would make more sense just to redefine marriage to include homosexuals.
That would have to be quite a contract: “A General Accounting Office report in 1997 identified 1,049 laws where federal benefits, rights or privileges were contingent on marital status. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/26/bush.civil.unions/