Preserving marriage is vital for protecting religious liberty in North Carolina. If activists were to redefine marriage for society, citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not comply with the new definition of marriage. That’s why we need your support to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th.
Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that redefining marriage has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation’s most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues ranging from religious liberty and individual expression of faith, to education and licensed professions. Here are a few recent examples:
• Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples
have lost their state tax exemption.
• Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington, D.C. have had to
choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or yielding to
this new definition of marriage.
• In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in
class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out
of such instruction.
• Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.
• Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married.
One of the very reasons our country was founded was to protect religious liberty. Now, the freedom to practice our religious beliefs is under attack. We urge you to join us in protecting religious liberty by donating to this battle to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
As a reminder, you are also invited to join us as we rally for marriage across North Carolina with the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council on the Values Bus Tour.
For more information about how you can help defend marriage in North Carolina, visit VoteForMarriageNC.com. Campaigns cost money, and this campaign is in its most critical time for mobilizing our forces. Making a generous donation to protect marriage from radical re-definition is the best way you can help. I hope you will!
Sincerely,
Tami L. Fitzgerald
Chairwoman, Vote FOR Marriage NC
Dear Marriage Supporter,The email containsa link to a PDF "prayer guide" featuring the following text:
The sanctity of marriage is being threatened not only here in North Carolina but throughout our nation. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, striking down the expressed will of over 7 million Californians who voted to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.
As many of you know, the Alliance Defense Fund has led the charge on defending marriage, not only in California but throughout the nation. We would like to invite you to join them this Sunday, February 26th for a day to pray for marriage – praying that marriages across our land will be strengthened, and that God’s design for marriage will be upheld and honored. We also ask that you take this time to pray for marriage in our own state, and that on May 8th voters throughout the state of North Carolina choose to protect the definition of marriage in the Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
Please click here to find a prayer guide that you can use and pass along to others to inform them about this special day. Also, please consider sharing this with your pastor, Bible study, friends and family, so that as many believers as possible will know and participate in this day of unified, focused prayer.
The future of marriage, both in North Carolina and the nation, is far from decided, and what is happening in California is just another battle in the ongoing war over marriage. Nevertheless, the need for prayer has never been more urgent, for without Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5). We are thankful for the Alliance Defense Fund and its tireless effort to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
We are working diligently to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th so that marriage will be preserved in our state Constitution. We cannot sit back while activists redefine marriage for all of us. We need your support to win this fight.
Please visit www.VoteFORMarriageNC.com to donate, volunteer and get involved.
With your support, we can protect marriage in North Carolina.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mark Harris
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Charlotte
President, NC Baptists
The institution of Marriage is under severe attack in our culture today. Will you join in a nationwide day of unified, focused prayer for Marriage in America?
There are many ways you can be in prayer for marriage on this special day. This is merely a guide to help you, and your church, as you go before the Lord in prayer for marriage.
Praise God for the impact of Marriage:
• Thank Him for how marriage refines our character, creates stable community for the birth and nurture of children, and unites men & women in an enduring whole-life union.
• Thank Him for giving the distinct, irreplaceable gifts a mom and a dad each uniquely bring to children, through marriage.
Pray for the marriages in your community:
• For healing, restoration, and divine protection over the relationships between husbands and wives in your church, neighborhood, and among your friends and family.
• That Christians will hold fast to the Biblical truth about marriage and boldly stand up for children, who are most protected and impacted by marriage.
Pray for the future of Marriage:
• For the nation to uphold the truth that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of society and the best environment for raising children.
• For Americans to remember the damage already done to marriage in our society, and how that has hurt children.
Pray for God’s design for sex and sexuality in Marriage:
• Pray for sexual purity; that sex will be reserved for marriage, and celebrated in marriage.
• Pray for those hurting and suffering from going outside of God’s plan for sexuality.
• Pray for sexual fidelity and faithfulness between husbands and wives.
• Pray for children’s innocence to be protected from false sexual indoctrination in schools.
Pray for victory in the lawsuits and legislation that threatens to undermine Marriage:
• Perry v. Brown – a lawsuit to redefine marriage by creating same-sex “marriage.”
• Bishop v. United States – a lawsuit to overturn our nation’s highest law about marriage.
• Brown v. Utah – a lawsuit to legally recognize polygamy.
.jpeg)
The purpose of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is "to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." It's quite clear from the language used by Amendment 1 supporters that their beliefs are deeply rooted in a specific brand of religion. I certainly don't share their views, nor do many other North Carolinians who either are not religious, or whose faith may not endorse discrimination. While the legislation itself steers clear of religious language, it's important that we are aware of the religious roots of anti-LGBT sentiment, and the fact that so many organizations and individuals are openly citing religious belief as the source of their beliefs on marriage.
On Tuesday, NC State University's Graduate Student Social Work Association (GSSWA) held an event on campus to discuss the proposed NC constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.  |
| Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (Egypt) |
Pre-500 BCE
• Abraham (founding forefather of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) had his wife Sarah sleep with both the Egyptian Pharaoh and the Semitic King Abimelech for political positioning and increased riches. Unable to provide Abraham with an heir, Sarah encouraged Abraham to marry her Egyptian slave as his second wife (polygamy), which resulted in the son Ishmael.
• A wife was considered her husband’s property. Marriage was used to strengthen a family’s financial or political position.
5th Century BCE thru 1st Century BCE
• In Athens, “Marriage was respected as an institution that provided progeny and good housekeeping; it was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate.” The ideal union was considered to be between an adult man and an adolescent boy.
• Marriage was a contract made between the bride’s father (or brother) and the groom.
• Toward the end of this period, “Roman marriage laws began to require the consent of the bride and groom.” The requirement for mutual consent between the bride and groom began spreading throughout the Western world and helped to change a wife’s position from a piece of property, like cattle, that could be given by the father to her husband.
1st Century CE thru 14th Century CE
• The early Christian church was hostile to marriage, believing that marriage and family were distractions from the path to salvation. To remain single and celibate was the ideal.
• Nero married two men, Sporus in 54 CE, and Doryphorus in 68 CE.
• Same sex weddings took place in increasing numbers over a period of time, but were outlawed in 342 CE.
• Basil I, founder of the Macedonian dynasty, entered into three same-sex unions, first with Nicholas, a monk of the church of St. Diomede; then to John, son of a wealthy widow in Achaia, Greece; and then later to the Emperor Michael. After Basil entered a formal union with Nicholas it was reported that “they rejoiced in each other.”
• “Canon law made two changes that were to have long-term effects. First, the church pressured individuals to marry in the presence not only of witnesses, but also of a priest, and to perform this ceremony ‘at church.’ Second, it downplayed the need for parental consent, and foregrounded the mutual will of the intended spouses as the major criterion in the making of a valid marriage. This revolutionary doctrine would endure and flourish over the centuries.”
• Love preceding marriage began to take hold in Europe, when previously affectionate feelings or familial devotion was expected to develop after marriage.
15th Century CE thru 18th Century CE
• Although mutual consent and love preceding marriage had taken hold, marriage retained elements of its former status as a property arrangement. Once a woman was married, her husband became her legal guardian. Her husband legally owned all the property she brought to the marriage.
• Governments and Churches in greater Europe successfully enforced a rule requiring church ceremony to validate a marriage beginning in the 16th century. This requirement came to England a bit later in, in 1735.
19th Century CE
• 1801 Murray Hall, a prominent Tammany Hall politician in New York, was posthumously discovered to have been a woman. Hall dressed in men’s clothing, lived as a man, and was married twice, both times to women. Hall also voted in elections, which was illegal for women at the time.
• The Oneida Colony in upstate New York, founded by John Noyes in 1848, cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health.
• If a woman worked outside the home, everything she made belonged to her husband. Her children also belonged to her husband. If she divorced him, he kept all of her earnings and their children, even if he was a drunkard who beat her.
• Biawacheeitchish, also known as Pine Leaf and Woman Chief, became a renowned war and camp leader among the Crow Indians. She dressed as a man when she went to war and had a number of wives.
• Henry James’ novel The Bostonians contained themes of feminism and led to the coining of the term “Boston Marriage” to describe romantic friendships between women, which often included holding hands, cuddling, sharing a bed, and making open expressions of love for each other.
20th Century CE
• Sephardic Jews in the Middle East maintained the right to polygamy until an all-inclusive ban was pronounced in the mid-twentieth century, after the formation of the State of Israel.
• 1967 In Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The court’s decision was based on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• In 1969 in California, Troy Perry presides over the "holy union" of two women, Neva Heckman and Judith Belew — the first public same-sex marriage ceremony in American history.
• 1989, Denmark – The first government-recognized same-sex union in modern history takes place.
Dawn of the 21st Century CE (2000s CE thru the present)
• 2000, Vermont – Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to grant civil unions to same sex couples. Civil unions are intended to grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, although they are not recognized by the federal government. The legislation that created civil unions came about as a result of a state Supreme Court decision, in which the court ruled that denying marriage rights to same sex couples was unconstitutional discrimination.
• 2001, The Netherlands – Same-sex marriage becomes legal for the first time in modern history.
• 2003, Belgium – This country became the second to legalize same-sex marriage.
• 2003, Massachusetts – The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples should have equal rights to marry under the state constitution. Their decision is based on the grounds of due process and equal protection).
• 2005, Navajo Nation – Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo President, vetoed a bill by the tribal legislature that banned same-sex marriage on the reservation.
• 2005, Connecticut – The Connecticut state legislature became the first in the U.S. to pass civil unions legislation without pressure from the courts.
• 2005, Spain – Same-sex marriage became legal.
• 2005, Canada – Our neighbor to the north becomes the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage..
• 2006, Arizona – The state’s voters become the first to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
• 2006, New Jersey – Under circumstances similar to those in Vermont in 2000, the New Jersey state legislature enacted civil unions in response to a state Supreme Court order that same-sex couples be granted the same rights as married couples.
• 2006, South Africa – Same sex marriage becomes legal.
• May 15, 2008 , Sacramento – California Supreme Court issued a decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Noting that the state’s domestic partnership law falls short of full equality, the ruling also holds that any discrimination based on sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny,” the same standard that applies to race and gender (In re Marriage Cases). Chief Justice Ronald M. George, an appointee of Gov. Pete Wilson (Dolan), writing for the majority stated that “An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legal basis on which to deny or withhold legal rights” (In re Marriage Cases).
• May, 2008, New York – Following an opinion by legal counsel, Gov. David Paterson directed all state agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages that are performed in other jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, California, and Canada.
 |
| Max Gearhart |
Disagreeing with Amendment One By Max Gearhart
I heard that there might be a new amendment to our state constitution called Amendment One. My parents will be asked to vote on it in May. It says that homosexuals cannot get married to their same gender and I say that we should say no to this because everyone is equal and we should not categorize people like that. I think nobody should be categorized because God created us all and no government law can ever deny that. If we pass this law, it will be really unfair. Gays are one of us! How can we be so unfair to our own people? Next thing you know they'll try to make a rule about autistic people not being able to marry.
Amendment One is a really unfair law that should never be passed. I think we should convince our parents to vote no on this law.
Here is exactly what Ballotopedia says about Amendment One
The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment will appear on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina as a “legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.” The measure would define marriage in the state as between “one man and one woman.” If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section.
The text of the measure reads:
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.
From Ballotopedia.org
 |
| News & Record story on the Lindley Park Gazette |
We should pay attention because these kids are the people who will be the custodians of this planet some day. Our future is in their hands and it's so heartening to think that they may grow up to make real and positive changes in our world. If what they are doing now is any indication of their future doings, I foresee great things for them.
Bob Garon of Ebson, N.H. is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He also happens to be gay. 
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."Certainly he can't mean the freedom to have consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home:
And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."And he can't mean the freedom for a doctor to practice his or her profession:
“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”Clearly, he doesn't mean the freedom to be brown in an airport:
"Obviously, Muslims would be someone you'd look at [in airport profiling]."The freedom to stay married to the person you legally married? Nah.
When asked if he would make same-sex couples get divorced, Santorum responded, "Well their marriage would be invalid."The freedom to not have religion shoved down your child's throat in public schools? Nope.
"It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."The freedom to terminate a pregnancy under the care of a licensed doctor? Of course not. Santorum pines for the good ol' days of back alley abortions:
Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion. And it happens in the medical profession. It happened very fast.I'm really curious about the freedoms Rick Santorum believes he represents. It sure sounds like he wants nothing more than to establish a Christian Taliban.
While Americans are not reluctant to inject religion into politics, faith is, at its core, a very private matter. An assault on faith, or even aspects of one's faith, is often perceived as an assault on one's very being. State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen is a committed Christian who was a swing vote on Washington's gay-marriage bill. When she finally decided to vote yes late last month, she wrote a blog post explaining her reasons, which beautifully lays out the case for why people of faith should set aside their personal prejudices in the name of equality.In addition to Haugen, Gov. Christine Gregoire, who introduced the legislation, reconciled her religious views with equality, changing her views that she had held for years.
"I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others," Haugen wrote. "I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It's not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day. But this issue isn't about just what I believe. It's about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It's about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed."
“It’s time, it’s the right thing to do,” Gov. Christine Gregoire said Wednesday as she introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.Here in North Carolina, opponents of the same-sex marriage ban have an uphill battle. This is, after all, the Bible Belt.
It was clearly an emotional day for Gregoire, who is in her final year in office and who up to now has publicly opposed gay marriage. Indeed, she let it be known that since being elected she has struggled privately with this issue.
“I have not liked where I have been for seven years,” she said Wednesday at an event with several gay marriage supporters to announce her proposal. “I have sorted it out in my head and in my heart, and what’s more important to me is, I believe in equality and respect of all citizens.”
Her struggle, she said, was her religion. She’s a practicing Catholic, a church that doesn’t support gay marriage.
“Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage,” the governor said Wednesday. “That’s a version of the discriminatory separate but equal argument of the past.”
The governor announced what she called historic legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
“Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families—making ends meet, choosing what school to send their kids to, finding someone to grow old with, standing in front of friends and family and making a lifetime commitment,” Gregoire said.
“For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children, if any, are protected by well-established civil law.”
As people of faith, clergy and leaders in our faith traditions, we are mandated by God to demonstrate and protect love in all its forms and to stand for justice for all of creation. In faithful response to this calling, we commit ourselves, along with thousands of other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith around North Carolina, to these basic principles:Conservative Christians might believe that the 300-plus who signed the statement would belong solely to the liberal persuasion, i.e. those who subscribe to a lenient and unrecognizable Christianity. That would be untrue. The list features signatures of leaders from a broad spectrum of religious affiliations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Unitarian Universalist, Jewish synagogues, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Quaker, Mennonite, Buddhist, etc. Truly an example of unity in faith.
While we respect the fact that debate and discussion continue in many of our religious communities as to the scriptural, theological and liturgical issues involved, we draw on our many faith traditions to arrive at a common conviction. We oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny legal equity to gay and lesbian people.
We oppose any amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit gay and lesbian couples from receiving the protections like health benefits and hospital visitation afforded by recognition of their relationships.
We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter. We recognize that the state may not require religious clergy to officiate at, or bless, gay and lesbian marriages. Likewise, a denial of state civil recognition dishonors the religious convictions of those clergy, supported by their faith communities, who officiate at and bless gay and lesbian marriages.
As people of faith, we, the undersigned, urge the North Carolina State Legislature to protect families in North Carolina by opposing the anti-LGBT constitutional amendment.
The list of signatories is astounding, including the President of the NC Council of Churches (as well as former presidents and board members), the Chair of Religious Affairs for the NC-NAACP, several bishops of the Episcopal Diocese, deacons, elders, rectors, military chaplains and priests. "When we vote on the rights of others, it becomes a moral and spiritual issue."Donna Miller, a wife and mother of two who attends Morning Star Lutheran Church in Mint Hill, states, "I believe I'm well inside my beliefs as a Christian to believe in same-sex marriage...Above all, you love everyone, and you don't judge."
"We are called as religious leaders to speak with the depth of our faith and to speak truth to power in the face of injustice. If I were to be silent, in some ways it would be easier. But I have the opportunity to speak in behalf of my congregation, to speak up for those who don't have a voice."
"A vote on the same sex marriage amendment has nothing to do with your personal opinion on same sex marriage but everything to do with whether or not you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally...No matter our color. No matter our faith tradition...No one, especially those of us whose forebearers were denied constitutional protections and counted as 3/5ths of a vote for their slave-masters and mere chattel property for other purposes in the old Constitutions-none of us should ever want to deny any other person constitutional protections."As should be clear, it is entirely possible, and in many cases, quite easy, to reconcile one's religious beliefs with a vote against the same-sex marriage amendment to the NC state constitution.
 |
| OH NOES! |
"Once we brought that to light, Home Depot made a public statement to everyone who contacted them and said [essentially] 'No, we haven't changed any policies. When it comes to homosexuality, homosexual marriage in our culture, we will continue to support it financially.'"Yesterday, Home Depot issued a statement to the AFA:
According to Sharp, Home Depot is breaking its own written policies by giving to homosexual events.
"Home Depot has a policy regarding grants and donations," he points out. "They will give cash and they will allow their employees to march in uniform in homosexual 'gay pride' parades. However, if a local church or Christian ministry were to have a parade, Home Depot would not donate to that and ... would not allow their employees to participate while in uniform."
"We have never changed our commitment to diversity and inclusion of all people, and we have no intention of doing so. Nor have we changed our apron policy or the guidelines for our charitable giving."The AFA responded to this by alerting their supporters that Home Depot is "digging in."
The ballot question, for those who have been living under a rock over the past year, would add to NC's Constitution a ban on legal recognition for all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and revoke many protections already in place for hundreds of thousands of tax-paying citizens. 
Via Reuters:
In light of Santorum's recent surge in the polls, and his near-tie with Romney in Iowa, it's worth revisiting his appearance on Piers Morgan's show.MORGAN: Well, let's clarify a few things. Do you think homosexuality is a sin?He goes on to state that, if he were a state legislator in Texas at the time of Lawrence v. Texas he would have voted against it. "I don't think that's something the state should involve itself in," stated Santorum.
SANTORUM: Well, that's a decision not for a politician. That's a decision for someone who is a cleric. I'm not in that line of work. There are a lot of things in society that are, quote, "sins" or moral wrongs that we don't make illegal. Just because something is immoral or something that is wrong doesn't mean that it should be illegal, and that the federal government or any level of government should involve themselves in.
MORGAN: So, you must have a view about whether homosexuality is a sin. I think if American people want to vote for you either way as president, they are entitled to know an honest answer to a straightforward question. You did invite me to ask you any question I liked.So, the question seems to be: Which 'sins' merit government involvement in Santorum's world? Certainly consensual sex acts between two adults in private should not be on par with, say, rape or burglary.
SANTORUM: Yes, I did. And, of course, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I'm Catholic and subscribe to the Catholic Church's teaching. But that's not relevant from the standpoint of how I view these issues from a public policy of view and that's (why) I answered the question the way I did. From a public policy point of view, there are a lot of things I find immoral -- morally wrong or as you would use the term "sinful" that don't necessarily rise to the level that government should be involved in regulating that activity. And so, I answered it correctly. I answered it, in fact, succinctly and directly, that while I think things are morally wrong, that doesn't rise to the level of government involvement in that activity.
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”Counter to how things are supposed to be?
A reader of Coyne's blog stated that this was a prime example of "religion being pushed into a moral change, not by any theistic insight, but through applying basic secular morality to the situation."...There’s neither a method nor an inherent trend in theology to reassess and alter its moral stands in view of changing conditions. Religious morality appears to change under only two conditions: either secular morality moves ahead of religious morality, causing it to change (e.g., treatment of women and gays or, in this case, condom use and birth control), or scientific advances show that the scriptural basis of religious morality is simply wrong (e.g., there’s no Adam and Eve and hence no Original Sin).This sentiment is something that I have spent considerable time debating with friends and acquaintances -- the fact that religious morality is quite often inferior to a morality derived from secular values. In other words, there are many instances of morality in religion which, despite being handed down by a supreme deity, actually cause harm to others and diminish overall well-being. In many instances, not only is harm directly inflicted on others, but the groundwork is laid for a pattern of suffering, and for an extension of suffering into other areas of humanity.
If a religion’s moral dictates remain fixed in stone for centuries, even under the press of secular advances, then that religion loses adherents. This, of course, is what is happening to Catholicism in so many places.
Certainly religion has helped millions of people in the past, helps millions today and will continue to help millions in the future. But for all its benefits in offering moral guidance and meaning in life, in today’s secular world religion alone is no longer adequate as a basis for ethics. One reason for this is that many people in the world no longer follow any particular religion. Another reason is that, as the peoples of the world become ever more closely interconnected in an age of globalization and in multicultural societies, ethics based in any one religion would only appeal to some of us; it would not be meaningful for all. In the past, when peoples lived in relative isolation from one another -- as we Tibetans lived quite happily for many centuries behind our wall of mountains -- the fact that groups pursued their own religiously based approaches to ethics posed no difficulties. Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.The Dalai Lama isn't speaking directly to the secular pressures upon religious bodies to change their morality. However, in so many words, he is saying that religious morality is inferior to secular morality in terms of obtaining a universal state of minimized suffering and an increased overall well-being for humanity.
I am confident that it is both possible and worthwhile to attempt a new secular approach to universal ethics. My confidence comes from my conviction that all of us, all human beings, are basically inclined or disposed toward what we perceive to be good. Whatever we do, we do because we think it will be of some benefit. At the same time, we all appreciate the kindness of others. We are all, by nature, oriented toward the basic human values of love and compassion. We all prefer the love of others to their hatred. We all prefer others’ generosity to their meanness. And who among us does not prefer tolerance, respect and forgiveness of our failings to bigotry, disrespect and resentment?
Consider the Catholic Church: an organization that advertises itself as greatest force for good and as the only true bulwark against evil in the universe. Even among non-Catholics, its doctrines are widely associated with the concepts of “morality” and “human values.” However, the church is an organization that excommunicates women for attempting to become priests but does not excommunicate male priests for raping children. It excommunicates doctors who perform abortions to save a mother’s life—even if the mother is a 9-year-old girl raped by her stepfather and pregnant with twins—but it did not excommunicate a single member of the Third Reich for committing genocide. (It excommunicated Joseph Goebbels, but this was for the high crime of marrying a Protestant.) This is an organization that is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. Are we really obliged to consider such a diabolical inversion of priorities to be evidence of an alternative “moral” framework? No. I think it is clear that the church is as misguided in speaking about the “moral” peril of contraception, for instance, as it would be in speaking about the “physics” of Transubstantiation. In both domains, it true to say that the church is grotesquely confused about which things in this world are worth paying attention to. The church is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.History offers many examples of secular morality effecting change in religious morality. Although there are still examples of public stoning being validated by religious belief, it is not tolerated by most religious bodies, despite its prevalence in scripture. Biblical instructions on how to keep slaves are ignored. Many churches now allow women clergy. These are but a few examples of shifting morality within religious institutions. Most often the shifts occurred as the actions, commands, or instructions in scripture became viewed as incompatible with society by those outside of the church. Sure, religious people have played a role in shifting morality from within (religious people have certainly been instrumental throughout history in condemning slavery, segregation, anti-LGBT bigotry, etc.), but it is often a case of the religious rejecting religious doctrine.
I am of the firm opinion that we have within our grasp a way, and a means, to ground inner values without contradicting any religion and yet, crucially, without depending on religion. The development and practice of this new system of ethics is what I propose to elaborate in the course of this book. It is my hope that doing so will help to promote understanding of the need for ethical awareness and inner values in this age of excessive materialism.There are many current examples of religious morality that does not meet this 'common denominator' requirement. In Uganda, we are seeing faulty religious morality in the Kill-the-Gays bill. Here in the US, Michigan's anti-bullying bill protects religious tormentors. The Catholic church is attempting to ban insurance coverage of contraception, despite the fact that the pill is crucial to the treatment of many women's health issues unrelated to contraception. Same-sex marriage opponents cite religious reasons for the denial of rights to LGBT citizens. Each of these instances of religious morality, among many others, result in the suffering of others, as well as a diminishing of the well-being of entire swaths of the population. Such religious morality is inferior to secular morality. You will be hard-pressed to find a plurality of secular justification for the same moral conclusion.
At the outset I should make it clear that my intention is not to dictate moral values. Doing that would be of no benefit. To try to impose moral principles from outside, to impose them, as it were, by command, can never be effective. Instead, I call for each of us to come to our own understanding of the importance of inner values. For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence and happiness we all seek. Of course, all the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness, can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I believe the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics that is beyond religion.
There have been a number of powerful and heartbreaking videos featuring young people being brutally honest about homosexuality, bullying, and same-sex marriage.
Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents were breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turned away openly gay parents.The Church has since called off efforts to keep in the foster care business by dropping lawsuits against the state, and agreeing to transfer over 1,000 foster care children to other agencies.
In discussions after the civil union bill went into effect in June, representatives for Catholic Charities in Joliet, Springfield, Peoria, Rockford and Belleville told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage between a man and a woman.
According to the Adoption Institute, at least 60% of U.S. adoption agencies surveyed accept applications from non-heterosexual parents. Nearly 40% of agencies have knowingly placed children with gay families. About half the agencies surveyed reported a desire for staff training to work with such clients.Contrast these realities with the stunted logic of the Church:
"If one agency doesn't serve you and you're gay, then another agency will," said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Adoption Institute. "You don't need 100% agency participation. The bottom line is, if you're gay or lesbian in America and you want to adopt, you can."
About a third of the adoptions by lesbians and gay men were "open," and the birth families' initial reactions regarding sexual orientation were very positive, according to the study.
“We believe that children are best served by being in the home of a married couple or a single individual,” [Catholic Conference executive director Robert Gilligan] explained. “That's not a radical notion.”Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
He added that homes provided by married couples or single, committed individuals “is in the best interest of the child and quite frankly, I think society should recognize that that's in the best interest of the child.”
More than 6-in-10 (62%) Millennials (age 18-29) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 69% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, 71% favor civil unions, and 79% favor employment discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people.The train has left the station, dudes. It seems most don't want you on board, anyway.
Slightly more Catholics (46%) believe the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of gay and lesbian people is too conservative than believe it is about right (43%).
Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) Millennials agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues. Among seniors, only 37% agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental and 48% disagree.
Among religious groups, 73% of non-Christian affiliated, 64% of Catholics, 60% of black Protestants, 59% of white mainline Protestants, and 51% of white evangelical Protestants say places of worship contribute either a lot or a little to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.
NC Sen. Jim Forrester, the lead sponsor of the amendment to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, has died.Sen. Jim Forrester was pronounced dead about noon after suffering complications from cranial bleeding, said his sister-in-law, Sally Beach. He had been admitted to the Gastonia facility on Saturday morning, then lost conciousness Sunday morning, prompting family members to be called into town from across the country.Forrester was 74. He was a retired physician with 20 years in the state Legislature. He gained notoriety in 2011 for several statements he made in relation to the anti-LGBT amendment.
“We are deeply saddened to hear of Senator Forrester’s death and send our prayers out to his wife, Mary Frances, and all of his family. Those of us who have worked in politics with Senator Forrester for years know him as an honorable and kind man who always stood for what he believes and fought to defend the values that made North Carolina and America great. Jim Forrester’s life is a model of public service, as a family physician, as a general in the national guard, Gaston County Commissioner and for the last 22 years as Gaston County’s senior State Senator. He will truly be missed by those of us in his GOP family.”
In the end, we can’t turn our eyes away from the increasingly strident and hateful role Forrester played in social politics in our state over the last few years. But a reflection of his whole life should include as well the positive contributions he made that affected many people as well.
Since the WE DO Campaign launched on October 3, eighteen same-sex couples have requested – and been denied – marriage licenses at the Buncombe County Register of Deeds Office in Asheville, NC. The purpose of the campaign is calling for full equality under federal law for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and resisting an unjust state law in North Carolina that prohibits marriage equality.I'm not sure how anyone can watch the below video and not be overcome with sadness and frustration. To think that many out there feel a sense of satisfaction from viewing it is even more depressing.
“There comes a time when you can no longer live as a second-class citizen and when you are called by your conscience to directly resist those laws that treat you as unequal,” says Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, Executive Director of the Campaign for Southern Equality and a candidate for ordination in the United Church of Christ. “We are saying, simply, we are equal people and laws that treat us as unequal, must change. We will continue to resist them until they do.”
On October 14, the final day of this phase of the campaign, Rev. Joe Hoffman and Rev. Cartledge will lead a public, interfaith blessing of all LGBT families at Roger McGuire Green, in front of the Buncombe County Courthouse. They will be joined by clergy from across faith traditions and from across the country. Following the blessing, clergy and community members will lead a large public action, which will be followed by an act of civil disobedience.
