When I see things like this or this, I can’t help but wonder what gives people the idea they know what God wants?
The Pastor the woman in the first link is dealing with has told her that because her son dressed as Daphne from Scooby Do for Halloween, that they are “promoting gayness” and are in violation of God’s Law.
Of course, the people who run Westboro should be well-known to every American, especially every American Christian as they are a clear and present danger to the American way of life.
At what point do we, as a civilized society, if we are a civilized society, stop listening to people who hate in the name of God?
And, just a technical question, here, how do we know that God hates anything, let alone anyone? Do we suddenly know the mind of God without fail? Are we Gods now, too?
I think the answer to these questions is no, we don’t know the mind of God anymore than we know the mind of the person standing next to you in line at Starbucks.
This phenomenon of “knowing” God’s mind isn’t limited to clergy (real or imagined), it also infests the minds of our state level legislators, as in this case from Utah: Utah Bill to Ban Gay Families? (Here is the text of the bill introduced by Rep. LaVar Christensen.)
To quote:
“marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence.”
Okay, let’s talk about this for a minute. Here you are introducing a bill to exclude whole segments of the population from getting state assistance if they need it, because they are gay, right? And your justification for this is because ‘God is the creator and supreme judge’ not only of the world, but, presumably of us, too, right?
If that’s the case, why are you judging others and trying to do God’s job? YOU, Representative Christensen ARE NOT God, therefore it’s not your place to decide who gets state benefits or assistance because they are Gay! You, Sir, are overstepping your authority.
A Question, Then
A simple question, then: Why do people hate in the name of God? I am very much looking forward to some in-depth responses.
The House of Goonery 
Well, having read both blogs that began the post, I’ve a few thoughts, and not all of them agreeable.
First, the woman is entirely correct in her first point–she is the child’s mother, and she alone (assuming that for whatever reason the father is out of the picture) has the right to decide what is right and proper for her child. I also happen to agree that there is no harm in the boy dressing as a female cartoon character, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would care enough to make a stink over it. The other members of that church were dead wrong to make this fuss in the child’s presence.
Second, this issue is at least half her fault. A church community is one that you join of your own free will, and has at it’s base level by definition a shared set of beliefs and values that each member of the congregation has an obligation to uphold and conform to. Even her 5 year old child realized that his choice of female clothing would not be well recieved, and she should have realized this as well. She even mentioned the fickle tastes of her young child, and in order to conform to the community of which she is a voluntary member she should have used her judgement and influence as his mother to steer the child away from what would clearly be an uncomfortable choice for all involved. I say this *only* because of the voluntary nature of the church community. If your beliefs differ in a significant way from your church, you are free to seek out another church with beliefs closer to your own where you will be more accepted. Rather than trying to change the beliefs of the rest of her congregation, she should simply change congregations. Those people that are a part of that community are there because they share certain beliefs—and just as they have no right to impose those beliefs on anyone else, she has no right to impose her differing beliefs on them.
This has no bearing on her right to free speach, the rightness or wrongness of her and her child’s choice of costume or daily dress, nor the rightness or wrongness of her church’s opinions on the matter. In the larger community of her town, state, and nation she has all of my support should she care to look for it. Those are all public communities that an individual has little choice over becoming a member of, and grant her rights protected by law and the blood of patriots to a number of freedoms, Free Speach among them. The church community, however, grants only those rights it deems appropriate. You join that community of your own free will, and are free to leave it at any time you choose. Their right to speak out and believe as they wish is as equally protected as her own, and as such they have my support as well—even if I disagree with them.
In short, you are granted the freedom to be and say what you wish—you are not granted the right to be liked by everyone unconditionally. So while your choices are your own to make, the consequences as regards the opinions of others are your own to live with.
And now on to that knucklehead Rep. LaVar Christensen. I’m not a big fan of politicians, or politics in general. Odd as it may sound on the surface of things, I don’t think Law should be used to enforce or standardize morality. Law should protect Life, Liberty and Property, in that order. As the first priority should be Life, no one living should be excluded.
In fact, in my opinion, his arguments work directly against him. To Quote: “families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm”. These are the families *least* likely to be in need of the programs he seeks to deny those he disagrees with. The broken families are the ones most in need of help. You are not going to encourage them to work toward your cherished ‘desired norm’ by denying them food, shelter and educational opportunities. Driving these people that have chosen to to hold values different than his own into deeper poverty is not going to aid the moral welfare of his community, especially when economic and social pressures make them far more likely to turn to crime and drug abuse to alleviate their suffering.
Freedoms of Religion and Speach are assured in the US Constitution and it’s Amendments. All laws derive their authority, and are inherantly limited, by that document. I personally feel that people’s right to choose their own lifestyle is a part of those freedoms. I don’t know that he’s actually violating rights in his misguided crusade….I checked and the 15th amendment guarantees freedoms despite race, color and or previous condition of servitude. The employment protections against discrimination on the basis of Creed (definition: any system or codification of belief or of opinion) are by presidential executive order, and later federal law, but not written into the constitution—though perhaps it should be. Regardless, the very language of the bill makes it obvious that it’s based on his religious beliefs and opionion, and not on a public need to protect anyone’s life, liberty or property.
LikeLike
The kid wanted to dress as Daphne for Halloween, not get a sex change. That’s the key point of this. Why someone got upset over a boy wanting to dress as a girl for Halloween is beyond me.
As to the point of joining a community, like a church, and wanting to impose changes to that community, normally I would agree. In this case, however, all the child wanted to do was wear a costume. For Halloween. It was a one-time thing.
I personally don’t think that the mother did anything wrong here. She was supportive and protected her child, as any mother should do.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
She didn’t do anything wrong in the context of being a mother. She had every right to defend and support her child, especially in such a harmless and unimportant matter as the choice of a halloween costume.
Where she failed to excercise proper judgement was as a member of her church. She went out of her way to make a point, first by forcing her child to wear the costume he had chosen even after he realized he had made a poor choice—this may have been for the child’s benefit, a seemingly harmless way of making him realize that decisions have consequences, and she may not have thought that anyone other than the child would be affected. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on that, though I have my reservations. Then she argued with her church after they pointed out the ‘error’ of her ways.
I agree with you in that the costume was a silly thing to argue over, and that no harm could of it. However, the members of her church community were offended, and tried to correct her within the context of it’s rules. That puts her in the wrong so long as she tries to maintain her position within that community. The church sets the rules in that setting, and they felt she violated them. They first tried to resolve the issue diplomatically, by there standards at least, and when she didn’t accept thier reprimand and agree to make ammends, they then resorted to what punitive measures were available to them through thier community. She further argued, and to avoid more public attention the church essentially knuckled under, but with bad feelings and a disrupted community all around. Nothing is really resolved.
I don’t get it myself. As far as I’m concerned, church people are weird. They get worked up about alot of things that would seem to me to be pure busybody BS… But then, that’s why even though I identify myself as christian, I don’t maintain a membership in any church, and have not attended a service in over a decade.
LikeLike
Hello Hosani Mubarak. I hope that this reaches you in good standing. Your question is how do people know what God wants. Before I answer it all depends on what you believe. Do you believe that the Holy Bible is true or not? It clearly states in Romans 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was done.” Now this is what we as Christian believers feel is the true and undisputed word of our God. Continue reading verses 28-32 it gives a list of the things that are disapproved of by God. It is written in black and white how we should live our lives. Nothing should be taken or added from it. We being human want to cherry pick this by applying the way we feel at that moment.
It’s not our place to judge but be examples of what his word says. God is love, so no people should not force their beliefs on others. With this being said people should give let people come to God on their own and not force them. What God wants is his will to be done not our own. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
“If anyone would come to me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).
God is Love,
Comfort in Pain
LikeLike
Names “WonderGoon,” not Hosani Mubarak.
“Before I answer it all depends on what you believe. Do you believe that the Holy Bible is true or not?
Personally, no. I think it holds a lot of truth for other people, though. I just don’t believe in it on a personal level. It’s a fine book if it were taken as an academic work, or as a piece of literature. It does not, however, hold any religious/spiritual truth for me.
Thanks for commenting.
Kindest Regards,
Goon
LikeLike
The thing to remember about the the Bible, and the New Testament especially, is that it was written by men. Worse, by men with an Agenda.
Romans was less a testament than it was a letter by Paul to the church in Rome. Sort of a Sermon, to a bunch of people he felt needed ministering to because they were a mixed bag of converted heathens and Jews, many of whom claimed christ as the savior, but still followed traditional jewish law.
His words, however divinely inspired, spoke more of his own views on morality, governance and salvation than they did of God’s wishes. Basically, he’s claiming “In God’s Name” to make his own pronouncments unquestionable. He was a man used to weilding power converted to the new religion, and using the name of God to replace the authority he lost in the conversion.
As with any document, Context is Everything.
LikeLike
The thing to remember about the the Bible, and the New Testament especially, is that it was written by men. Worse, by men with an Agenda.
Exactly! That why I think of the Bible as 25% Word of God (again, for those that believe), 25% academic work (history/example of early literature), and 50% political manifesto. Essentially a “how-to” guide for world domination.
I’d go so far as to say it’s more insidious than Mein Kampf, since, you know, Hitler was honest about it.
Romans was less a testament than it was a letter by Paul to the church in Rome. Sort of a Sermon, to a bunch of people he felt needed ministering to because they were a mixed bag of converted heathens and Jews, many of whom claimed christ as the savior, but still followed traditional jewish law.
His words, however divinely inspired, spoke more of his own views on morality, governance and salvation than they did of God’s wishes. Basically, he’s claiming “In God’s Name” to make his own pronouncments unquestionable. He was a man used to weilding power converted to the new religion, and using the name of God to replace the authority he lost in the conversion.
As with any document, Context is Everything.
Personally, I don’t view anything Paul (or any other Apostle said, for that matter) as being true, from a religious standpoint. As you point out, this is Paul’s viewpoints clouding the issue and not the unfiltered Word.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
Have a blessed day.
LikeLike
Thanks, you too.
LikeLike
And I now realize that despite my intentions, I forgot to address the question you actually asked.
Why do people hate in the name of God?
I don’t believe they do. I think they hate for their own reasons, and use God (who rarely comments) to lend authority to otherwise baseless arguments.
To say something ‘In the name of God’ is really an attempt to claim the authority of the church community. It is the beauty of the religious model of governance, as God cannot be questioned it therefore lends decrees ‘in his name’ unquestionable. Those that share in the belief in the same God are therefore obligated to accept His will.
This is why we have as one of our founding core principals the seperation of Church and State, which the Republicans would do well to remember. “In the name of God” may carry alot of weight with the gullible, and is certainly not questioned by those that agree with it, but ultimatly God is a silent partner and his ‘Decrees’ are nothing but words. Actions have always spoken louder.
I’ll start worrying about what a church says “In the name of God” about a boy wanting to dress as a girl, or even about being gay if it actually came to that in another 10 or so years, right around the time God starts raining fire and brimstone down on people for that crime again. Talk is cheap, He can convince me with a little Heavenly Wrath.
LikeLike
Thank you for your insightful reply, Storydad.
LikeLike