|
dcnovice -> My Foray Into Conservative Anglicanism (5/4/2012 6:28:41 PM)
|
I did something stupid today. (I say that as if it's some sort of rarity, which alas it is not. Sigh.)
For reasons I can't quite fathom (though I suspect masochism is involved), I've been making regular visits lately to TitusOneNine, a blog for conservative Anglicans. Today, two threads caught my attention, and I crossed the line into registering for the site, which allowed me to post comments.
One thread was about same-sex marriage. It linked to a piece by Albert Mohler, a leading Southern Baptist. He took the New York Times to task for the "undisguised intellectual dishonesty" of its support for marriage equality.
Perhaps not surprisingly for a liberal gay man, I found Mohler unconvincing. He played words games about how "discrimination" is "not necessarily wrong at all." Then he served up some faux outrage that the Times had dared to ask for "evidence" that same-sex marriage would harm society. Mohler offered no concrete examples of such harm, except for the claim that the "redefinition" of marriage would lead to "a fundamental redefinition of society" (he did not say how), which would in turn be "a harm to the entire society."
Finally, he took the Times to task for saying that the law should "allow all American adults the right to marry as they choose," bringing out the hoary examples of polygamy (which actually was part of the definition of marriage not all that long ago and still is in some places, but never mind that) and incest.
I posted a general comment about finding Mohler unconvincing and responded, as I do here, to comments by other posters. One had boasted, "My teenage grandchildren are able to think for themselves, and they are fully aware that same-sex 'marriage' is immoral." Good Lord, I thought, the old fool is actually proud of his or her offspring's homophobia. I didn't say that of course, but I did say it would be interesting to learn how and why the teens had reached this conclusion, and I noted that, as a teen, I'd often thought I'd figured everything out when I was actually just reflecting the prejudices I'd absorbed. Well, that post vanished, being replaced by a note that a new commenter was being moderated. I don't know if that means my golden words will return at some point, or what.
I'd mentioned in my initial post (which survived) that I'd been unfamiliar with Mohler, so another poster commended him to me as "a staunch, faithful Christian who believes in the Authority of Scripture. "I replied that I'd done a little searching and had learned that Mohler views Zen Buddhism as "a demonstration of satanic power." Ditto for Hinduism. That comment got moderated too.
The second thread was about the Bible. It was a long quote by a Methodist bishop, and I zeroed in on the following lines: "John Wesley, in the preface to his sermons, said that God gave us a book which provides us with his plan for our salvation. The Bible tells us all we need to know, indeed, can possibly know about how to be saved and win a place in heaven. He, therefore, called himself a man of one book. The Bible then is God’s gift to us, not a book humans have composed for themselves and given to themselves for their own edification."
I noted, politely, that my modest learning about the Bible's origins had left me startled to hear it described as "one book" or "a book." Isn't it, I asked, a collection of writing from various times and places? Weren't there discussion and debates about what to include? I also asked: If humans didn't compose the Bible, who did? That post got moderated too.
In addition to being moderated, I seem to have been suspended. At least, my login no longer works. I don't know if that's temporary or permanent. I sent a polite email to the "elves," as they're called (cute,no?), apologizing if I'd broken the rules of the road and asking how I'd erred. We'll see what I hear.
But, actually, the moderation (which I accept the elves' right to impose, just as I do here) isn't my real focus. What actually set me typing was amazement, over the past month or so, at some of the things folks say in the name of religion. I was particularly struck by the pride in the antigay teens because I could see the torch (which has singed me in the form of a gay-bashing some years back) being passed to a new generation.
I must admit I've come away with a new sympathy for our atheist and agnostic posters. There must be times they just want to shriek, "For crying out loud, these people are nuts!" I've had that reaction myself on pondering school districts where one must apologize for teaching science or jurisdictions seeking to codify the prejudices of an ancient desert tribe into their constitutions. But, of course, one must watch what one says, lest one appear anti-religious.
Interesting day of surfing! I know I've gone on a bit, and I thank you for e-listening.
|
|
|
|
