1. It is difficult for Christians to explain precisely why we believe homosexuality is a sin. It is difficult to explain because it is based in a teleology that is not shared by most non-believers. In order to explain why homosexuality is wrong (from a Christian perspective), one has to appeal to theology.
2. Personally, I welcome more gay characters in children's programming, if only because I feel that Christians have too many options as to what to allow their kids to watch. Anything that makes Christians realize they have to raise their children to be different from the surrounding culture, and not simply to be good American children, is useful.
3. The NYT recently featured an editorial I found surprisingly well-reasoned. The article is from 5 August and is entitled "How To Respond to Rick Perry's 'Response.'" Essentially, TX Governor Rick Perry has hosted a huge Christian prayer event, and a secular group sued to bar him from doing so. Of course this action failed. Here is the central paragraph:
Religion plays too important a part in many people’s lives to be denied a role in the public square. To be sure, there are some things the state can’t do, like demand that schoolchildren pray each day. But elected officials, like other citizens, are free to have and express religious views. And voters are entitled to support or reject public officials for all kinds of reasons, including their religious views. To hold that elected officials can’t publicly invoke their religion won’t help a country of believers, agnostics and atheists reach any kind of consensus. It will only impoverish the conversation, depriving many citizens of the ability to make, and judge, arguments that reflect their most cherished views.
Moreover, by trying to banish religion from the public sphere, Mr. Perry’s critics end up cutting themselves out of the debate. When religion is viewed as a fundamentally private matter, the natural corollary is to think that it is inappropriate to criticize someone’s faith.
Too many politicians manage to use religious rhetoric to bolster support, but manage to retreat from religious criticism (both from their own faith group and from opponents) by consigning religion to the private realm.
4. Along the same lines, Michelle Bachman received a question at the most recent Republican primary debate. She was asked how her belief that women must submit to their husbands would impact her role as leader of the nation. The question was met with audibles boos from the audience, and conservative pundits have picked up on the story to accuse the left (the left of the Republican party?) of sexism. It seems like a fair question, like asking John Kennedy if he, as a Catholic, would submit to the Pope.
2. Personally, I welcome more gay characters in children's programming, if only because I feel that Christians have too many options as to what to allow their kids to watch. Anything that makes Christians realize they have to raise their children to be different from the surrounding culture, and not simply to be good American children, is useful.
3. The NYT recently featured an editorial I found surprisingly well-reasoned. The article is from 5 August and is entitled "How To Respond to Rick Perry's 'Response.'" Essentially, TX Governor Rick Perry has hosted a huge Christian prayer event, and a secular group sued to bar him from doing so. Of course this action failed. Here is the central paragraph:
Religion plays too important a part in many people’s lives to be denied a role in the public square. To be sure, there are some things the state can’t do, like demand that schoolchildren pray each day. But elected officials, like other citizens, are free to have and express religious views. And voters are entitled to support or reject public officials for all kinds of reasons, including their religious views. To hold that elected officials can’t publicly invoke their religion won’t help a country of believers, agnostics and atheists reach any kind of consensus. It will only impoverish the conversation, depriving many citizens of the ability to make, and judge, arguments that reflect their most cherished views.
Moreover, by trying to banish religion from the public sphere, Mr. Perry’s critics end up cutting themselves out of the debate. When religion is viewed as a fundamentally private matter, the natural corollary is to think that it is inappropriate to criticize someone’s faith.
Too many politicians manage to use religious rhetoric to bolster support, but manage to retreat from religious criticism (both from their own faith group and from opponents) by consigning religion to the private realm.
4. Along the same lines, Michelle Bachman received a question at the most recent Republican primary debate. She was asked how her belief that women must submit to their husbands would impact her role as leader of the nation. The question was met with audibles boos from the audience, and conservative pundits have picked up on the story to accuse the left (the left of the Republican party?) of sexism. It seems like a fair question, like asking John Kennedy if he, as a Catholic, would submit to the Pope.