tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post2193496846066850307..comments2023-09-18T01:46:27.105-07:00Comments on Speaking Natalie: Proposition 8Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-78052815936747615822008-09-19T20:46:00.000-07:002008-09-19T20:46:00.000-07:00Oooooh. A good reading of the arguments, and I wi...Oooooh. A good reading of the arguments, and I wish our tangent-filled conversation had gone further. We should absolutely talk more about this.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I never thought of this in relation to our Catholic education at Chaminade. Going into Chaminade as a religion that is quite possibly the furthest from Catholicism in all the major ways (Jesus' divinity, for one) but it was a chance to put that to the test of my own faith. In my recent (intense) studies of my own religion, I've learned even more and have more to bounce against, and learned how invaluable that Bible education as well as Catholic-centric was, since it gave me something to compare my own faith to.<BR/><BR/>That also being said, I think Chaminade *did* provide a remarkably tolerant environment, but at the same time, I think that we should be fostering that environment of toleration to other ideas instead of imposing them.<BR/><BR/>These thoughts are incredibly scattered but I'm sure I'll talk to you soon.emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868470182177150645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-24358256514204346212008-09-18T09:32:00.000-07:002008-09-18T09:32:00.000-07:00Natalie,Your Catholic school experience was indeed...Natalie,<BR/><BR/>Your Catholic school experience was indeed both valuable and non-corrupting, and we shall forever be thankful for it. The biggest contributor to that outcome was how well-prepared you were to receive conflicting teachings even when you were in 6th grade. But another big reason is because the school, while being faithful to its own beliefs, was tolerant of those who did not hold to them. This fostered a school culture which made it easy for you to be thoughtful about these teachings (instead of being forced to be defensive). The ultimate proof of the school's tolerance was that they awarded you (and your sister) their highest honor at graduation, which measured both academic performance AND spiritual maturity. For many in our society, Tolerance and Integrity are attributes that are too difficult to unite.Oswell55https://www.blogger.com/profile/16086143697523976111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-41626518573579527022008-09-15T14:34:00.000-07:002008-09-15T14:34:00.000-07:00Certainly government is supposed to protect people...Certainly government is supposed to protect people. As to what it's supposed to protect them <I>from</I>, that's another matter. There's certainly a strain of American political thought with a long and distinguished pedigree that says government is supposed to secure people's life, liberty, and property, and that's about it. But it would be disingenuous to say that "the country was founded" upon any particular such theory, or anything like that.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I agree that the traditional homophobic opinion is really that Homosexuals as a Group (TM) are intentionally targeting young children to make them homosexual as well. I'm sure there are people who think that, but I think the broader fear is that Homosexuals as a Group, and their social allies in the "culture wars," are trying to create an environment where kids are brought up thinking that homosexuality is "okay."<BR/><BR/>The thing I find thorny about that perception is that I think it's basically true. Why would you care what your relationship is <I>called</I> if not because you want it to be thought of the same as legally identical heterosexual relationships? The basic cry here, I think, is not, "Give us our rights!" so much as "Stop treating us like we're different!"<BR/><BR/>Which brings me, at least, squarely back to the issue of what you do when your kids are being taught something as true that you, as a parent, don't believe to <I>be</I> true. Some parents apparently conclude that they should use the political process to stop that thing from being taught. I don't actually think there's anything illegitimate about that at the state level. What gets taught as a social norm in California state schools is absolutely an issue that is on the table for the voters of California to decide through the political process.<BR/><BR/>For me, the issue is a little more complicated because I'm <I>already</I> in this position with respect to much more important issues such as religious "tolerance" (really religious relativity), and even in middle and high school I was taught as true Christian doctrines that I don't think are Scriptural. Frankly, as a California Christian, I sort of <I>expect</I> The Man to teach my kids stuff I don't believe is true, and I figure that's the price I pay for wanting to live in California. It's difficult for me to figure out how I can vote for Proposition 8 without also accepting religious relativity under protest, at least.<BR/><BR/>There may be lots of honest, straightforward voters who do feel that way, and I certainly won't begrudge them the opportunity to vote their consciences or demean their consciences as bigoted or small-hearted for doing so. I mean, I dunno, maybe I <I>do</I> accept state-sponsored religious relativity education under protest at best. If that's the case then it seems perfectly consistent for me to use this opportunity to vote against sexual orientation relativity as well. But for me personally, I'm not sure "under protest" is really the best way to describe my acceptance of religious relativity. Which leaves me the question of how I could justify a yes vote for Proposition 8. Might post some thoughts on that later.Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12662787003156000207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-30255659927228421702008-09-15T14:04:00.000-07:002008-09-15T14:04:00.000-07:00My opinion on this matter is based on a couple of ...My opinion on this matter is based on a couple of assumptions. They seem pretty fundamental to me, but if they're off base, I defer to your more practiced opinion on the role of the government and the constitution.<BR/><BR/>The reason why we, as Christians, want to legally allow things we don't agree wtih morally is because, as you said, we don't think legislating morality will further the kingdom.<BR/><BR/>However, this opinion stops when it becomes about protecting people. One of the primary purposes of government is to protect its constituants.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I think the incredibly vocal minority pushing this and other measures like it (22 before it was shot down, etc.) honestly believe that it <I>is</I> a matter of protecting people.<BR/><BR/>The traditional incredibly homophobic opinion on the matter is that homosexuality is an intentional choice, and that "Homosexuals" as a group are intentionally targeting young children to make them homosexual as well.<BR/><BR/>It's not perfectly analagous, but it strikes me as very similar to the problem of "we don't want any black people in our neighborhood because all they think about is how to rape our white women", and that's a notoriously difficult problem to fix.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15480452524845413806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-64137804231662487282008-09-12T21:04:00.000-07:002008-09-12T21:04:00.000-07:00Well done!Well done!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com