Human Rights & Progressive Faith Movement & Religion & Strategizing Posted by Zeus, 23 Jul 2007 04:53 am

Making a Moral and Religious Argument for Gay Marriage

Affirmative religious support for gay marriage is apparently extraordinarily novel even for educated citizens. This I learned when I engaged a 50-something lawyer from the San Francisco Bay Area over the issue on my flight outbound from Oakland to Boston to participate in a panel entitled: Gay Marriage: Moving from Tolerance to Affirmation. When I told him that I and other panelists, as part of the progressive faith movement, were presenting a Christian pro-gay marriage moral and religious case, his reply was “I didn’t know there could be such a thing.”

This got me to thinking both about the very real and unnecessary divide between religious and secular awareness and of the silence or tacit agreement of even mainstream religions as to the abuse of the civil rights of gay people.

Some political and legal headway has been made. The state of Massachusetts, for instance, has extended the right of gay marriage, yet theological and moral conviction in favor of gay marriage has been largely absent. This was to change in a small but mighty way as, for two hours, in February 2007 in front of a modest audience, six panelists attempted to join consciousness and conviction across ideological and belief traditions and confront Christian-in-name intolerance on its own terms.

Rev. Anne Fowler, from the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, talked about her work within and outside the church as a straight person to support the inclusion of gay people in the institution of marriage. Pam Werntz, a gay Episcopal mininster, related how her own marriage brought her into community with others in a way that she could not have imagined had she not been extended the right to marry. Justin Lee, the founder and executive director of gaychristian.net, an online gay evangelical Christian community, waxed practical about the need for religiously inclined gay citizens to have an ability to connect rather than be alienated from faith.

The other three panelists, Gina Farag, myself (Zeus Yiamouyiannis), and Otis Gaddis, III had coordinated a foundational and progressive moral and religious argument based upon certain observations and premises.

1) From Gina Farag’s paper, the provocative insight: Why is it that we allow a person who has monstrously violated all aspects of sacred relationships to get married as long as this marriage is to the opposite sex? Our current laws and customs permit a serial rapist, adulterer, child molester, torturer, abuser, and murderer to get married, in jail even, to a person of the opposite sex. Yet a person who has been a committed, loving partner and parent and stellar community citizen, cannot get married to a person of the same sex. What is wrong here?

2) From my (Zeus’s) paper: The right and encouragement of sacred relationship should be extended and encouraged in all people as a matter of choice. Specifically, responsible, loving marriage ought to be permitted and supported in adult romantic relationships, regardless of sexual orientation. Those who violate the requirements of honorable marriage ought to be lovingly and firmly called out, regardless of sexual orientation. It is the nature of the relationship (loving versus dishonoring), not the type of the relationship (heterosexual versus homosexual), which matters. One cannot sensibly accuse another person of promiscuity and then prevent that same person from establishing a recognized, committed romantic relationship. Vice versa, one should not uncritically extend the name of marriage to someone who abuses its requirements. Whether someone “stays in” a marriage, that person is not “married” in any credible sense if they repeatedly and unrepentingly abuse the trust and dignity of their spouse.

To this I add the observation: You don’t see so-called “family values” groups challenging the irresponsible behavior of men in marriages in any substantive way that involves consequences. These largely men-led groups do little if anything to challenge men who repeatedly cheat on their wives, abuse their wives, and neglect their wives. In fact men’s irresponsible behavior is blamed on their wives. Their wives are encouraged to be more sexy, more dutiful, to pray, and to accept the abuse and stay in the relationship no matter what, denying the awful trauma and example this presents to women and their children. Contrast this with the unabashed support supplied to Rudolph Giuliani, a man who married three times and cheated on his second wife repeatedly, and Newt Gingrich, who left behind two wives, (one of whom was recovering from cancer at the time), for “younger models”.

3) And finally from Otis’s paper, the notion that: Gay marriage has unique, positive attributes that can strengthen the institution of marriage for all people, including heterosexual couples, by challenging misguided forms of marriage and supporting an emphasis on love, commitment, and choice in marriage. Often people talk about marriage being about love, but many still accept the outdated or dishonoring notions of marriage as having to do with control (usually men over women), procreation (even though we are dealing with overpopulation), and property (as if one could “own” another). Gay marriage does much to subvert these primitive and dehumanizing conceptions of marriage by establishing a more equal, possible dynamic based in relations with the same gender, by emphasizing romantic attachment over procreation, and by disrupting the historical notion of men “possessing” women.

Now I am not arguing that these powerful observations and reasonings displace the present, largely secular drive to insure political protection for gay people and gay marriage. However, that is largely a “live and let live” equality/neutrality argument. Theological and moral pluralist arguments can press the affirmative aspects that extend the honoring of gay citizens beyond mere inclusion and acceptance to appreciation and contribution in their own right.

Citizen Zeus

Trackbacks

Responses to “Making a Moral and Religious Argument for Gay Marriage”

  1. on 23 Jul 2007 at 6:42 am 1. Arnaud said …

    I think I’d better start with a disclaimer: I support gay marriage and an end to all discriminations based on gender or sexual orientation (with the caveat that I don’t actually like the idea of marriage that much, regarding it as meddling by Church, State and/or society where it has ultimately no business meddling, but let’s that pass).
    That said, the basis of your first point - and parts of your second - seems to me to be that the -mainly religiously motivated- opposition to gay unions is ultimately a form of punishment which, in your view, should either be extended to all “offenders” or withdrawn totally.
    In my opinion, it’s nothing of the sort but the refusal to condemn a practice seen as sinful.
    I suppose your third point goes toward addressing that problem but I am afraid you’ll never be able to make a religious case for gay unions without proving first that gay sex is not a sin.
    Furthermore I am afraid that in the end, the argument you, or to be more precise Ottis Gaddis, are making in #3 will undermine your whole position. Gay people have as much as anybody the right to be in an unhappy relationship.
    The Church of England is ordering gay and lesbian vicars but, hold on! as long as they are not sexually active! Talk about letting black people sit at the front of the bus if they promise not to speak and to behave correct…

  2. on 23 Jul 2007 at 9:30 am 2. James Killus said …

    I am concerned that the “progressive faith movement” seems no more concerned with maintaining a separation of church and state than any other faith-based coalitions.

    I do not believe that the state (or its actual, concrete exemplar, government) should recognize any institution as “sacred,” reject any behavior as “sinful” or consider religious arguments, as such, on any subject at any time.

    I’m quite aware that people do indeed form their political opinions on these bases; people form their political opinions on all sorts of foundations, including vile bigotry. But the general political discourse rejects certain sorts of arguments as too “extreme” or words to that or other effect, and this should be one of them.

    I recognize that this is probably an argument that is intended to be within the religious community, but this is a conjecture on my part, since that is not stipulated at any point; in fact, the anecdotal engagement that begins the essay argues that it will not be so constrained.

    I will also note that hypocrisy is a central tenet of every religion I’ve ever observed, not to mention every political philosophy, and is a central feature of human behavior. Any argument based on the hypocrisy of the opposition will always result in the more shameless hypocrits winning.

  3. on 23 Jul 2007 at 11:45 am 3. Seattle said …

    Hmmm. What a mess. Where to start? So we’re skipping the question of whether gays should have the right to marry and going straight to: marriage in that it represents controls over individuals guided by religious and governmental rules is wrong? I may be wrong, but I’ve always gotten the impression that the rules of marriage were originally in place to guarantee that progeny of a physical union be properly supported by the father. Love, devotion, and all that emotional layer were added on later in most societies and are still optional in a lot of places-from what I can see. I’m completely supportive of gay marriage even as I’m bemused by the fact the heterosexuals in western European based societies at least seem to be drifting away from the importance of the institution while the homosexual members desperately wish to be a part of it. Not that I’ve found that to be 100%. I still recall a conversation with a couple in Germany in which I was bitterly told that they didn’t give a damn if/when Germany legalized their union. They had their own private commitment anniversary and that is what they honored.

    However, in the Christian realm, I think the key quotes from the Bible are:

    Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

    Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”

    1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

    As long as a portion of the population is reading those quotes as the word of God, it’s a long uphill battle. As was mentioned above.

    I will also note that hypocrisy is a central tenet of every religion I’ve ever observed, not to mention every political philosophy, and is a central feature of human behavior. Any argument based on the hypocrisy of the opposition will always result in the more shameless hypocrits winning.

    Gee James…Well, now I think I’ll just go drown myself… ; )

  4. on 23 Jul 2007 at 11:58 am 4. Zeus said …

    Arnaud, I think I answered the queasiness people have about gay sex, simply by saying, concentrate on the nature of any intimate act and not its type. Is it loving? Is it devoted toward creating emotional depth and commitment? These definitely hold for marriage.

    People may legitimately contend on two counts, 1) well, what if I don’t want to be married. Is there anything wrong with “casual” or even awkward developmental coming-of-age sex, either gay or straight. I’m exploring, I’m not sure if I’m in love. You seem to suggest all sex must be of the married kind. No, I’ve simply not addressed this. It’s a good subject for a post! I’ve restricted myself to the sex associated with marriage, which does seem to require, practically, fidelity among other things, warmth, affection, communication, etc. 2) well, what if a married couple, gay or straight, wants to engage in S & M, and they consider that intimate and healthy? Who are you to be imposing your “vanilla” ideals. To this, I’d simply say, “I’m not.” I’m open someone’s story about how certain sex acts deemed “exotic” might produce intimacy, closeness, and commitment. They don’t appeal to my sensibility, but I have an open mind. However, they must demonstrate results. 3) One can also say, “I’m not interested in intimacy, equality, and love, I’m into lust and domination and using others.” To this I would say, I disagree with your direction, because of what these practices generate: dependency, abuse, disregard, lack of depth, which militate against the very notion of relationship. I think it is wrong and self-defeating to found human love on relations of power.

    As an aside, many people like to claim theoretical possibilities,like the viability of “open” marriage, for instance. I just haven’t seen them work. I don’t believe the “good” is determined by my opinion, but by the consequences of our choices openly and candidly received, learned from, and brought forth into new creative endeavors. I don’t need to scorn my self for “sinning” (which is missing the mark), but I ought to be responsive to my mistakes and appreciative of the gifts of wisdom and happiness I may have happened upon in my effforts.

    James, it’s unfornate that words like “sacred” and “sin” just to choose two that you have used have connotations that have been etched into definitions. One notion of sacred is like “sacred cow”, untouchable, eternal, inspiring awe and obedience. One notion of “sin” is stain, original imperfection and unworthiness, reason for condemnation. What do these accounts do, but create authoritarianism, debased thinking, gnawing unworthiness that allows one to be manipulated by opportunists. “Well,” say many who read these posts, “those are the operating definitions, plenty of evidence to that, and those are what religion and faith propound.” You want results, these are the results.

    But if you want different results try a different tack. One option would be to attempt to obliterate religious expression and influence in the public square. Okay, nice theory, but this simply doesn’t work. In fact the abandoning of pluralist religious expression in public, has allowed it do be dominated by a small but influential minority of theocrats. So actually this attempt to clear out religious expression from the public square backfired, the more modest privatized their worship, and the belligerant took theirs public. You cannot impose right by authoritarian means either by asserting that a particular religion should govern the state, nor by saying that no religious expression is allowed in the affairs of the state. The state represents citizens, and many citizens are religious, therefore the state ought to provide a forum for diverse pluralistic religious and secular engagement reflective of the citizenry, including those who want no religion.

    Why not simply create, or more accurately, “bring out” the ignored aspects of these important terms and concepts. “Sacred” has, and can again, mean a profound respect for another’s being (entailing deep listening, comity, love, non-violence, and so forth). “Sin” can mean simply human, imperfect, capacity for error, which provides the basis for learning, for appreciation, for working through challenge. One does not have to accept the terms posed by others nor the practices that may stem from them.

    To both James and Arnaud. I think the saying, “You cannot legislate morality” is correct. I don’t think it is ever appropriate to try to legislate something you cannot enforce, nor coerce something that is necessarily a matter of affirmative choice. What I believe is that it is necessarily up to me to construct and to contribute as a citizen. In this sense especially I agree and strongly support a separation between church and state. The church NOR the state ought impose it’s dogma on each other or on the people both are meant to serve. Otherwise, both have destroyed the very thing they were built to support: coming to spiritual and civic knowledge and experience through genuine choice.

    But church and state separation have often been confused with enforcing a separation between value and operation [i.e. so-called “free markets” are ostensibly purely utilitarian and without value, Hah!], between religion and politics [has anyone checked human history on this one: They will be engaged with one another; how might they be so in a healthy way?], between private morality and public conduct. This last has been particularly difficult for many. Most cannot see any alternative besides simply possessing a certain packaged morality, judging others by it, and condemning or approving their behavior as a result.

    This is simply an impoverished and static understanding. It is my strong progressive conclusion, that it is precisely through my public contact with others (in a civic and civil democratic arenas) that I inform and expand my personal notions and understanding of morality. And it is by sharing my deepest convictions (spiritual, religious, or moral), to engage and challenge public norms (and having them challenge me) that I exercise my duty as a citizen AND spiritual being. This pluralism is necessary both for my civic and spiritual participation. It is an absolute necessity of my ability to even exercise faith.

    Self-certain moralism is not faith, but its opposite. What faith is required when a human-constructed conclusion is rigidly adhered to as eternally right? What need is there of a Great Creator, of a spiritual teacher? Hey, what need is there of even living if you’ve already got all the answers? No, what is often passed off as religion and faith is a form of self-idolatry, and the only way to effectively address this errant notion is neither to malign it, nor marginalize it, nor take it too seriously, but rather to create an affirmative, creative, powerful new narrative and vision to compete with it, (as with the civil rights movement in the 1960’s), and in so doing affirm difference, change, knowledge, and growth, the gifts of life.

    Citizen Zeus

  5. on 23 Jul 2007 at 11:59 am 5. James Killus said …

    I’ve been told by scholars more interested in the subject than I am, that marriage (at least the European tradition) was historically a means of insuring the “correct” transmission of property. Specifically, it was to insure the legitimacy of heirs.

    I will note that the majority of the “rights” that are associated with marriage have to do with property and its disposal. That’s not a profound observation, since most legal rights concern property, primarily because property is such a complex matter, and thereby requires more case law than most other rights.

    I will also note that if one ignores all the messy stuff about sex, civil unions between same sex individuals make all sorts of sense for various people, especially seniors, who would benefit greatly from companionship and the protection that comes with having a partner, and who yet may have trouble finding someone of the opposite sex with whom they are sufficiently trusting to have the sort of life and death relationship that we call “marriage.”

  6. on 23 Jul 2007 at 12:39 pm 6. Zeus said …

    Seattle,

    There is much dispute about what the Bible “says”, how it has been translated, and what is meant by these passages. One of the more lucid summaries challenging these fundamentalist tropes is: this site from the Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html#summ (see “Summary” below for a brief look at it’s conclusions)

    Another great link is from Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce, a gay Christian-friendly, Bible-friendly website:
    http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

    Quoting, “In the 16th century, John Selden pointed at two Latin words carved into a marble wall in an ancient church in Rome: “Scrutamini Scripturas,” which means search the Scriptures. “These two words,” Seldon said, “have undone the world.”In one way, John Selden was right. Misusing the Bible has drenched the planet in blood and tears. But in another way, he was wrong. Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of their lives quoting (or misquoting) that text.
    The way certain Bible verses are used to condemn homosexuality and homosexuals is a perfect example of this.”

    But it is not for me, Zeus, to engage in a Bible war of interpretation. The Bible is a sacred document for many, inspiring spiritual engagement, but it is only a beginning and not the last word. As was adroitly pointed out in both previous websites cited: much of the problem is with ignorance of the Bible, not familiarity. Homophobia and other oppressions do not hold up well when put to biblical scrutiny. It appears that the Bible has been used to uphold human error and inhumanity, as it was with slavery. But the Bible originated in the spirit of liberation from, NOT furtherance of, slavery and oppression. Some have not forgotten that.

    Rev. White again: “Over the centuries people who misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible have done terrible things. The Bible has been misused to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-Christian people of faith; to support Hitler’s Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan. Shakespeare said it this way: “Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
    We’d like to believe that no person of good will would misuse the Bible to support his or her prejudice. But time and time again it has happened with tragic results.”

    Just type in “gay bible” into Google and you get a couple of other interesting sites as well:

    http://www.bibble.org/gay/religious.html
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm (for a listing of all the quotes ostensibly related to gays)
    http://www.mccel.demon.co.uk/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.htm (for a concise homophobic interpretation)

    Citizen Zeus

    From: Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html#summ

    A Summary

    When one compares the original Hebrew and Greek writings with various English translations of the Bible, discrepancies emerge. There are many passages in English Bibles which clearly condemn same-sex activities. But when the original Hebrew or Greek text is studied, the passages are either ambiguous or are unrelated to consentual homosexuality within a committed relationship. Two words which are often mistranslated in many places in the Hebrew Scriptures are:

    qadesh means a male temple prostitute who engaged in ritual sex; it is often mistranslated as “sodomite” or “homosexual.”
    to’ebah means a condemned foreign Pagan religious cult practice, but often translated as “abomination.”
    We have concluded the following:

    The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution, including homosexual ritual prostitution. This was a common practice within the Canaanite fertility religion; some believe that the practice was also taken up by some ancient Israelites.

    God’s destruction of town of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality

    The Bible says little about homosexual feelings.

    It says nothing about sexual orientation; the concept of orientation dates only from the late 19th century.

    A number of homosexual relationships are described positively or neutrally in the Bible

    Of the many hundreds of Jesus’ instructions and prohibitions, few have a sexual component and none condemn homosexuality.

    Paul may have condemned same-sex sexual activities by homosexuals, but the passages are unclear; there are many possible interpretations.

    Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown.

  7. on 23 Jul 2007 at 12:54 pm 7. Zeus said …

    James,

    I agree with the inclusion of “civi union” as a matter of choice, one which affords legal protections and requires certain responsibilities without the religious and institutional baggage often associated with “marriage”. It may be that two folks want their sacred relationship to be completely private. Civil unions would be for them. Some, as you suggest, may just want recognized companionship, but do not have in them the desire to be “married” (as would be perfectly understandable with older people who have gotten together after their long marriages may have ended in practice, but maybe not in heart, when their respective spouses died). Others simply might not support the institution of “marriage” as debauched by Britney Spears, etc. and want a civil union. The principle however is, “no one who wants a marriage, is eligible age- and mental state-wise, and who could reasonably be expected to respect and care for their partner, should be denied one.”

    Zeus

  8. on 23 Jul 2007 at 2:30 pm 8. Arnaud said …

    “…how certain sex acts deemed “exotic” might produce intimacy, closeness, and commitment. They don’t appeal to my sensibility, but I have an open mind. However, they must demonstrate results.”
    Why? Who are you to say that? Issues of abuse in a sexual –or otherwise – relationship are best dealt by law. (“Intimacy, closeness, commitment” don’t need a wedding by the way. The alternative is not, as you seem to suggest, sex before marriage, to which you do not object – how grand of you! – and “fidelity… warmth, affection, communication” which somehow in your narrative seem to make marriage a necessity.) This is certainly not an attempt to “legislate morality”, a sentence I always personally found meaningless. As for marriage, if one thing has been proved over the centuries, it’s that in no way is it a guaranty of a better relationship. I don’t think gay couples will fare any better than straight ones in that light.
    Again, with a slight change in perspective, one could very well include, amongst the “exotic sex acts” you describe, homosexual sex. But who is to say that homosexuals don’t have the right to, I don’t know, make mistakes? Fall for the wrong guy or girl? Have failed relationships?
    I am sorry to say that the more I read you, the more I disagree with you. (For what it’s worth, which I agree is not much.) You seem to be quite happy with the status quo at the condition that you be included in it. And you do not address the position that marriage is but a form of control of the sexual and affective lives of people.
    By the way, Seattle, it was always my understanding that the early christian Church did not conduct weddings. Christ was supposed to come back shortly, sex was prohibited since there was no need for reproduction, and the first christian communities were similar, and gave rise, to monastic communities. I may be mistaken – Wikipedia seem to think so – but what I learnt at school was precisely that: marriage was instituted when it became evident that Jesus was going to take his time coming back and that the early Church needed a way to control the sexual impulses of its adherents.

  9. on 23 Jul 2007 at 4:25 pm 9. Seattle said …

    LOL Now I really want to go read a book of research on the origins of marriage-if I can find one that actually takes a cross-cultural look at the institution.

    In the current century, if not even going so far as to say, in THE PRESENT, I think there are a lot of people who want someone to tell them right from wrong, good and bad, please, no gray areas. They want stability-something we’ve been short on for a couple of generations now. They don’t want to review 2 millenia worth of versions of the Bible. They’ve got their bible, it’s the word of God, end of story. It’s their security blanket and the rest of it is literally Greek to them. Are they stupid? Not necessarily. Just self boxed.

    And I’d agree that you can’t whitewash all gay relationships and say they should be held up as an example of what can be achieved. I’ve seen a gay man with a broken jaw thanks to his lover, multiple gay men who had to have surgery to repair intestinal ruptures due to not enough care taken during anal sex, and the full gamut of messed up relationships between messed up folk-who were attracted to members of the same sex. Still they all have the right in my book to engage in their relationships, commit to each other, and have that commitment acknowledged.

  10. on 23 Jul 2007 at 5:06 pm 10. James Killus said …

    Perhaps I was not clear in my statements. I believe that the State has no business endorsing anything except civil unions, though I have no problem with them being called marriages. For any government to recognize anything as a “sacrament” is a gross violation of the separation of church and state and should be as offensive to religion as it is to secularism. There are some things that I do not wish for government to have any opinion about whatsoever. One of them is private sexual behavior and another one is matters of faith.

    I understand that there is no chance whatsoever of my wishes being granted on this. The phrase “when hell freezes over” comes to mind. Still, I find myself reluctant to offer compromise in the face of those who stipulate that they will never compromise.

  11. on 23 Jul 2007 at 5:13 pm 11. Zeus said …

    Arnaud,

    I disagree. Although ACTS of abuse is best dealt with by the law procedurally, ISSUES of abuse are best addressed in my opinion by a healing process. The larger cultural, communal, and personal cultivation of respectful behavior that truly addresses the core of abuse and which allows for the engagement of rage, entitlement, historical oppression, past abuse leading to more abuse, and other factors is what establishes and protects the alternative– loving, kind, mature, connected behavior.

    I am detecting a great deal of reductionism and cynicism whenever so-called “traditional” concepts are raised: “Christianity is only nasty and has to be extinguished. Marriage is only about power relations and control and ought to be thrown out. At best, the two ought to be seen as innocuous private choices.” Whenever, I raise the possibility of subverting the status quo by taking the ancient concepts, reviving the progressive and revolutionary ideals contained within them, and finding new ways to apply and posit them, I am actually blamed with supporting the status quo.

    I’m not willing to cede to anyone the once-and-for-all nature of any human institution or custom. They can always be improved, and not only incrementally, sometimes in a paradigm-shifting leap. You simply don’t get much more radical in the Christian community, currently, than supporting gay marriage theologically, making an orthodox case to confront poorly-examined prejudices against gay people.

    Nor will I fight to have the POSSIBILITY of the sacred and the spiritual considered by those whose only inclination is to dismiss it. I have received some decent comments on certain spiritual and religious content issues, but the proposition of spirituality or sacredness itself having some validity has been either or tacitly (and sometimes acidly) dismissed as delusion, charade, hypocrisy, nonsense, thought control, power games, and other belittling descriptors, ad nauseum. The notion by most commentors appears to be that at best progressive faith persons can use their influence to manipulate religion away from the public sphere or defuse it or tie up the theocrats’ energy, but heavens no, don’t try to bring out the affirmative aspects of religion because that can only mean a different, but still oppressive, kind of moral policing. I certainly don’t have that power, nor do I aspire to it. My “faith” is that through loving and spiritual engagment that others might taste a new possibility that shows them a way to be happier, more loving, or more fulfilled.

    Of course people CAN (have the right?) to be miserable and to do shitty things to others, and the way past that is NOT surveillance, but to engage in healthy relationship (which is not self-evident, and not just “live and let live”). It needs to be developed and supported. If one chooses to spite the possibility, go ahead and be a rebel-in-name, embrace the games and dramas of deception, sleeping around, whatever. I’m sure they have their thrills. And I’m also sure that they hurt relationships either overtly by what they damage or covertly by the depth they prevent. People are free to live a superficial life, and frankly, much fundamentalist Christianity is evidence of one such form, though I have met even those rare fundamentalist Christian who think and believe deeply and contribute well toward others.

    I don’t feel the need to persuade anyone. No one seems to be picking up on the drumbeat I’ve been pounding out. To persuade someone purely by argument is in many ways to prevent the insight in that person, that allows them to make their belief their’s and to contribute their unique perspective. Not to engage one’s own and others’ beliefs is to support solipsism. I don’t want people “converting”. I’d like their own sensibilities by considering other possibilities, to be deepened, and I’d like my perspective to be deepened. I have faith and experience that shows me this is a virtue. I don’t need dogma or argument to show me that.

    But I am inclined to stop commenting on these issues, because response is dwindling, it hasn’t really led to new insights or directions, just either/or arguments. I think I’ll go after something else. I’m a little tired and it appears to be played out.

    CZ

  12. on 23 Jul 2007 at 5:27 pm 12. Zeus said …

    James, I personally agree that the state should, ideally, only involve itself in “civil unions”, the legal and civic end of committed relationships, that is “rights and responsibilities”. I don’t think the state has any business promoting or blessing the “sacrament” of marriage, nor withholding it. The “sacrament” is not made by the church or the state but between two people (and perhaps their God or gods if they have them). This sacrament can be witnessed by the church or the state, but I do not believe it is the part of either to “incentivize” it (i.e. government programs to pay people to get married, another brilliant Bush admin. idea, or church doctrines which seem to hold sex up as candy to entice people into marriage). It is interesting to note that these same institutions have been instrumental in discouraging certain marriages, i.e. those between classes, races, sexual orientations in ways that might upset a racist, classist, etc. status quo. Though, once two people make that commitment, it is helpful to have support in helping that succeed (friends, community, no “marriage penalty” tax-wise, effective, non-ideological couples counseling, etc.)

  13. on 23 Jul 2007 at 5:59 pm 13. Oaktown Girl said …

    We’ll, I’ve had an extremely hectic day at work, and have not had any chance to sneak-read the comments except for little fragments here and there. So I’m not sure on how we got off onto some of these various tangents.

    I think we all agree that “the State has no business endorsing anything except civil unions”, as James says. My main purpose for this topic, and why I think it’s so important, is this: strategically, how do we get there?

    Right now, the only religious voices that are heard on this matter on a mass scale in the corporate media are voices claiming that “God” is against marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. But those people are neither the final nor the only word on interpreting the Bible. We greatly harm our purpose by ceding all arguments on the religious grounds on this issue to them. Therefore I feel it’s absolutely essential to support religious voices sounding a progressive message. Not that that religious arguments should be the only ones on “our side” of this issue, but that they should proudly stand side-by-side with the non-religious arguments.

    Perhaps it shouldn’t have to be that way. Sure, it’d for nice on all kinds of issues if people just left religion out of it, but that’s not the reality we’re dealing with. And I don’t believe standing strong to support a religious argument for Gay marriage in any way undermines our Constitutional arguments for it. I think it just brings more people into the fold and onto “our” side.

    I am concerned that the “progressive faith movement” seems no more concerned with maintaining a separation of church and state than any other faith-based coalitions.

    James, I not sure if this is just a “hunch” you have or not. My experience with people in the Progressive Faith Movement is that they are extremely strong proponents for the separation of church and state, not just because it’s a founding principle of our Constitution, but because they understand keeping govt. out of religion strengthens, not weakens, peoples’ ability to practice their faith as they choose. That’s why it’s no coincidence that the President of People United for the Separation of Church and State” is a Reverend.

  14. on 23 Jul 2007 at 9:37 pm 14. James Killus said …

    I agree that “it’s no coincidence that the President of People United for the Separation of Church and State” is a Reverend,” but you will not like my reasons. I believe that if the head of such an organization did not have religious credentials, no “persons of faith” would join the organization.

    So am I accusing religious people generally of prejudice and bigotry? I’m afraid that I am. In looking back over the last 25 years or so, it looks very much to me like every step of the long decline has been a matter of religious “moderates” compromising with and giving cover to, religious extremists. It looks to me like religious moderation compromises with religious extremism rather than be accused of immorality and ungodliness. And, ultimately, it seems to me that when morality and ethics are assumed to be matters of faith, then those whose faith is “passionate,” in other words, the extremists, win.

    I see op-ed pieces written by the devout that demand that morality be a matter of religious faith, that assert that atheists have no basis whatsoever for any standard of ethics or morality. I want to see such persons shouted down by other religious persons; mild disagreement is simply not enough, and usually, not even that is forthcoming.

    So, chip on the shoulder? Sure, why not? I grew up in the Bible Belt, escaped, and the bastards followed me. I once believed in keeping a low profile and not stirring things up. I even had arguments with some people to that effect. But they were right and I was wrong. I want to frighten the horses. I want the Giant Nuclear Fireball to light the godly sky.

  15. on 23 Jul 2007 at 9:37 pm 15. Oaktown Girl said …

    Well, I’m finally home from work now, but I’ll keep this short because I’m totally exhausted.

    I think many of us have been so personally beat-up upon by religion, and have read about and witnessed so many awful things done in the name of religion, that when we hear someone sharing anything from a religious perspective we often don’t have the ability to actually “hear” it. I’m not talking about anyone here specifically, just making a general observation about non-religious and anti-religious folks in general (self included).

    All my activist life, I’ve heard people on the “left” crying out, “Where are the real Christians?”. Well now that the “real” Christians are getting themselves organized so they can say in a loud voice, “Here we are!”, we need to do better than to greet them with icy suspicion. What are we saying then? “We want the “real” Christians to speak out, but we don’t want them to state any of their values in religious terminology because that makes us uncomfortable”? C’mon.

    We need to be able to hear progressive Christians (and other progressive religious folks) speak their truth without hearing it as, “They’re saying I’m a bad person because I don’t have ‘faith’ and because I don’t think about things in the same way that they do”. That’s not what’s going on. You wouldn’t want a religious person to hear you speak your truth about life and values and have it be interpreted as your saying, “I’m a better person than you are because I’m not religious”.

  16. on 24 Jul 2007 at 3:57 am 16. JP Stormcrow said …

    Via Crooks and Liars, very pertinent to this thread is this segment from the YouTube debate last night.

    QUESTION: I’m Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I’m the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina.

    Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

    So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?

    The video is at the link. As C&L said, can you imagine a MSM pundit framing the question that way? It also led into a question to Obama asking the difference between bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage.

  17. on 24 Jul 2007 at 10:25 am 17. James Killus said …

    First, I have never asked for the “real Christians to speak out,” nor will I. It has been my experience that people speak out when they speak out, and for their own reasons, and it will never, ever, have anything to do with my requests or preferences.

    Second, if someone’s “faith” is so weak that they will be put off by a little icy suspicion, then please refer to my previous statements about hypocrisy and the tepid passions of religious moderates. Atheists swim in an ocean of icy suspicion from religionists, so cry me a river.

    Third, every study, focus group, and poll I’ve ever seen says that, on the issue of gay rights at least, the greatest single determining factor for someone’s opinion (neglecting such calculated political cynicism as evidenced by John Edwards, and I mean that in a good way), is whether or not they know any committed gay couples. So the question becomes, “What does religion have to do with this?” And my answer is the usual: faith is the gloss that people put on their gut reactions, opinions, and moral(izing) judgments; it doesn’t even require the semblance of thought that rationalization requires. If you really want to influence a Christian’s opinion about gay marriage, forget the theology and bible study and introduce them to a gay couple or two.

    If someone wants to go to the effort of putting the religious sugar coating on gay marriage, fine. Then if they want to do that for abortion, stem cell research, evolution, racial tolerance, fairness to immigrants, a humane health care policy, and a foreign policy that rejects war crimes, also fine, but it seems like an awful lot of work for not much of a real result, since
    the Christianists will deny the validity of the “progressive faith movement,” will attack them on every front, while demanding that they turn the other cheek. And the PFM will, if history is any indicator, oblige.

    So don’t expect applause from me for anyone doing the heavy lifting of justifying basic moral principles on religious grounds. I’d rather strip the clothing of faith from the bigots and authoritarians among us and identify them for what they are, human being reifying their prejudices and naming the resultant claptrap “God.” Nor will I go back to refraining from making these judgments and speaking up about it. I used to keep quiet; we didn’t have the word “concern troll” then, but that’s what I was being. No longer.

    And if this seems intolerant perhaps even dangeral, well, the “true Christians” will forgive me, right? isn’t that what they do?

  18. on 24 Jul 2007 at 10:56 am 18. Oaktown Girl said …

    James, in case you thought I was speaking to you, I never said that you ever asked for “real Christians” to speak out. What I said is this is what I’ve repeatedly heard in activist circles.

    And I never implied that anyone’s faith would be “weakened” by being met with icy suspicion. I meant that it would would weaken our ability strategically to work together as people of faith and non-faith. Clearly I should clarify what I mean.

    I don’t mean that we should suspend suspicion and caution for the sake of accommodating anyone. Suspicion is healthy, and I encourage its practice. What I was trying to get at was that we can maintain our caution and suspicion and still be a little more open to hearing people, and less accusatory than we have been.

    Now, if anyone chooses not to employ that with people of a religious nature, I completely respect and even honor their right to do so. People disagree on tactics and strategy, that’s fine.

  19. on 24 Jul 2007 at 12:43 pm 19. Seattle said …

    What’s a concern troll?

    Does this mean we all agree on the rights of homosexuals to get married? ; )

    Religion always seems to be a hot button topic. I may not proclaim a faith myself, but doesn’t mean I can’t perceive that it can and does have a positive impact on many individual’s lives. Humans have done amazing things under the auspices of religious faith. That’s because humans are capable of amazing things and religious thought can certainly give direction to those abilities. Focussing soley on the negative results of religion is no different than focussing soley on the good. Either approach is skewed. Placing additional support behind the right to gay marriage in religious terms, if it furthers the cause, works for me.

  20. on 24 Jul 2007 at 1:06 pm 20. Oaktown Girl said …

    What’s a concern troll?

    Ah, sweet innocence. Seattle, I found the “Urban Dictionary” to be quite useful when I got online. For political blogs and sites, that’s how I found out what “FReeper” meant. For an example of general modern slang terminology, that’s how I found out what “MILF” meant (gag).

    Basically, a troll is someone who tries to sabotage the conversation. A “concern troll” is someone who pretends to be on your side of an issue (ex: a conservative pretending to be a liberal/progressive) and tries to undermine the conversation from that false angle. Usually the goal is to sabotage the conversation and to discourage people from being active or involved in an issue.

    Amanda Marcotte gave a stellar definition of “concern troll” about a month or so ago. I’ll have to see if I can find it for you.

  21. on 24 Jul 2007 at 1:23 pm 21. James Killus said …

    Concern Troll (n): One who professes complete faith in the progressive cause, who deliberately works to destroy it by claiming falsely that our displays of courage and strength are actually a weakness.

    From the Wikipedia:

    A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one his/her sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some “concerns”. The goal is to sow doubt and confusion within the group.

    For example, in 2006 a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a “concerned” supporter of Bass’s opponent Democrat Paul Hodes on several liberal NH blogs, using the pseudonyms “IndieNH” or “IndyNH.” “IndyNH” expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.

    Concern Troll

    A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

    A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, “I don’t think it’s wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government.” Or, “This controversy is making your side look disorganized.”

    It is, of course, possible to mimic the behavior of a concern troll out of sincere, handwringing timidity. I’ve done it myself and will no doubt do it again when I’m in a less dispeptic mood.

    But be aware of this: many Christian fundamentalist sects believe that the Catholic Church is a satanic conspiracy, whereas the Catholic Church says outright that anyone not in the Church will not acheive salvation. Yet the two groups have made common cause to support the Conservative Movement, bash gays, outlaw abortion, etc. If the progressive faith movement is not able to deal with a few people sneering at their faith, what good are they in a dog fight?

  22. on 24 Jul 2007 at 2:03 pm 22. Seattle said …

    Yeah, it’s a nasty old world out there. Snarl, snarl, slobber, woof, woof.

  23. on 24 Jul 2007 at 3:17 pm 23. James Killus said …

    And while I’m being snarly, where are the calls for criminal prosecution of the Church hierarchy that covered up the cases of pedophile priests for decades? The LA Diocese just settled hundreds of cases for over $600 million, half of which is to be paid by insurance. But that’s purely civil and does nothing to change the perception that these men (like so many others in power) consider themselves to be not just above the law, but a law unto themselves.

    Fifty years ago they’d have never gotten this free ride. The word “papist” meant something then, daggum it, and the anti-papist Christians would have been out for blood. Now the higher ups not only get a free pass, but some of them are blaming “liberal society” for sending so many nasty homosexuals their way. I want to see a few bishops do the perp walk as accessories, and I want any priest who speaks against homosexuality to be a laughing stock. And I really want the fundamentalists to realize that they’ve just packed the Supreme Court with Catholics.

    Snarl, snarl, woof, woof. Insert Gojira bellow here.

  24. on 24 Jul 2007 at 7:25 pm 24. Zeus said …

    It seems like some of the crossed purposes expressed in comments about the place for faith in dealing with issues like gay marriage has to do with a “combat” vs. “therapeutic” vs. “creative” mentality. “Therapeutic” is a bit of a set-up. But I’m not interested in combat, and less so in therapy/conciliation. Both of these mirror the typical neo-conservative and neo-liberal tactics respectively. These approaches tend to either destroy or ignore. I think it is the point of this blog to engage from a (progressive) point of interest and creativity, offer strong possibilities, engage sound strategies coming from an innovative perspective, come to new knowledge that equips us to address the world better, whether it be about faith, or meeting strangers, or some other subject. I think it is key in this to see some value (thanks Seattle) in what some author brings forth, if only to get one’s dander up and stirring up critical resistance. But what I see too often is the need to reify one’s own current stances and attack “them” (whoever they might be). I don’t find this very helpful nor effective in actually, practically addressing issues. This happens ideologically or virtually, but rarely goes into action because the “action” has been accomplished in verbal battle. Maybe it has merit for one’s self-satisfaction, and maybe it influences larger understanding in it own humble way, but it doesn’t provide a meaningful alternative for the future, only debunking what we have, seeking justice for the wrong done, and…. then what? I don’t think the necessity for vision should be knocked here as hegemony-seeking. Someone has to come up with and attempt to apply a new way forward.

    Citizen Zeus

  25. on 24 Jul 2007 at 9:08 pm 25. JP Stormcrow said …

    I have stayed out of this so far due somewhat to business busyness - but in larger part due to my own conflicted views on this point. I am quite clear on my own beliefs, but the churchliness that I broke away form was much more in the social action tradition. (My only involvement the past 30 years or so has been to give my parents moral support as they helped fight off several “fundamentalist/evangelical” attempts to take over the congregation - sometimes at the cost of old friends.)

    So my bottom line on this quite pragmatic - and as such I am very glad to see a forum like the one Zeus describes take place, even though I have a number of quibbles with specific platforms or positions. I truly do think that the question in the debate that I reference above is absolutely what we need - if to do nothing else than to whittle away the association of moral high ground with reactionary religious positions. The comment at Crooks & Liars about how you could not imagine an MSM pundit wording the question in that way is illustrative of the problem. If through actions such as Zeus describes we can even shift that discussion to more neutral terms vis-a-vis the religious community - that in itself would be a great thing.

    More like this.

  26. on 24 Jul 2007 at 9:20 pm 26. JP Stormcrow said …

    Somewhat OT, but I would urge everyone to take a trip over to Open Left and read up (or better yet participate in) what they are calling Legislation 2.0 with Dick Durbin and which concerns developing America’s broadband strategy. Here is an excerpt from Dick’s introduction:

    My hope is that over these four days, I will receive comments and suggestions that will help me draft legislation that will make the United States more competitive in terms of broadband access. Following this process, I will draft legislative language, which will be posted online, for all to view and comment on prior to its introduction. To my knowledge, this method of drafting legislation - soliciting public comment, translating it into legislative language, and requesting comments prior to introduction - has never been attempted at the federal level.

    I urge all to take part - regardless of religious belief, affiliation or lack thereof.

  27. on 25 Jul 2007 at 10:15 am 27. James Killus said …

    My, my, what a wonderful QED.

    I am now given to one of my tangents. What do the following people have in common, besides having lost an election for U.S. President:

    Jimmy Carter
    Walter Mondale
    Michael Dukakas
    Al Gore
    John Kerry

    My answer: they were all perceived and portrayed (with some accuracy), as ineffectual, pompous windbags.

  28. on 29 Jul 2007 at 8:30 pm 28. Kiera PSI said …

    So instead we’ve elected ineffectual, inarticulate…hell, there aren’t enough negative adjectives in the world to describe this one. Sigh.

    Personally, I don’t think the US Government will ever change its position on gay marriage. They’ve pushed “God” into the pledge of allegiance, onto our coinage and into our official ceremonies. We’ve historically elected hypocrites, and now we complain that they are so.

    I don’t think any progressive religious movement will succeed. Not because it isn’t a good idea, but because people turn to religion out of fear. And due to this motivation, they will usually support the most controlling of those religions (Catholicism, Islam, Southern Baptists, Hinduism, et al). Progressive religious movements don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining enough of a following to succeed, no matter how moral, ethical or sensible their position

    In my more close to perfect world, there would be two forms of marriage; Civil and Religious. In order to have status under the Law, one would need to have a Civil marriage. One could choose to also have a Religious marriage if one so desired. If one didn’t care about legal status, only moral status in the eyes of their “church”, one could choose to only have a Religious marriage. When doing the latter, any children would have to be legally adopted by the father for him to have any rights over them, and one would have to file a legal change of name petition if he or she wanted to use their spouse’s last name. Under a Civil marriage, the only barrier would be a minimum age and proof of mental fitness as with any legal document, and could only proceed if there were no other Civil marriage in force. Prenuptial agreements would be mandatory and could be revisited in the event of childbirth. Divorce would then be no-fault only.

    Yes, I know, I’m delusional, and it wouldn’t be any more perfect…but I’m allowed to dream!

  29. on 29 Jul 2007 at 10:14 pm 29. Oaktown Girl said …

    …because people turn to religion out of fear.

    I would disagree with a statement that broad. While it’s true enough that a lot of people do turn to religion from a fear-based place (whether they consciously realize it or not), that does not describe everybody.

    And it is exactly because so many religious institutions do practice more fear and separation than love and unity that many folks with a “spiritual bent” turn elsewhere to fulfill their needs in that area - places outside the traditional church structure. They do this because it’s normal for folks to want to have some place where they can be in a community of like-minded friends. However, in a lot of places, there is no “somewhere else” to turn to. There’s only just the church. So they’ll continue to go if it’s not too off-putting, and they won’t if it is.

    Oakland and Berkeley have a bounty of progressive, socially conscious churches. I can say for sure there are a lot of good people participating in them for love and not from fear. And just because Jesus doesn’t float my boat, doesn’t mean I don’t respect what they are doing. (Or that I won’t preach the gospel of Astaroth to them, or tell them about the Glory of the Giant Nuclear Fireball and the eternal loving embrace of Gojira).

  30. on 30 Jul 2007 at 12:36 pm 30. Zeus said …

    Oaktown G and Kiera PSI,

    You both make good points. In hearing your points, it seems to me that many people think there are only two choices, a false god or no god. The false god is the authoritarian, destructive, intolerant notion of god, usually, if not always inspired by fear and associated with fundamentalist religious traditions. The “no god” is one chosen by some as the secular and “smart” evolution beyond the ignorance and hatred of calling oneself God as a prelude to killing others or condemning them as damned. However, that has its limitations too. One’s “god” usually becomes oneself, and the self, in abstraction, is not really a good “decider” for a society. It has to be connective and interactive.

    And this is where an alternative “god” is emerging, not the “one true god” (which is another false god), but a recognition of a larger evocative, flowing, and organizing presence, a source of coherence and creation that includes but goes beyond the self, the ego, and insitutional projections of the ego. I suggest an alternative is an evolution past a false god and no god to at least a larger, affirmative, and more pervasive understanding of “good” and “just” and “love.” Even reason, democracy, and humanism have their “gods” in this more redemptive, positive, and universal sense. The difficulty is how to embody it practically. The attractions of the other models involve their ability to be practiced by humans easily. How does one “practice” this larger power without reducing it simplisitically, i.e. to a blunt instrument of oppression or a figment of imagination?

    There is not easy answer to this question. Sure, given our understanding of the “real” right now, people see their “gods” in terms of what will get them “stuff” or protect them from people who want their “stuff”. But “stuff” cannot be the precipatative motivation as we move into an age of physical scarcity of resources. We will either kill ourselves if we do not change our practices of the “real” and our concepts of God or we will adjust our views. This alternative view can encompass the spirituality of secularism and religiosity and can be practical. It merely requires a recognition of the multi-dimensionality and interactive nature of the world. I “I” don’t simply determine reality, and “you” don’t, but we and that beyond “we” do, then how do we act. Well, we act to love, honor and learn about each other and that larger world beyond “we” as an acknowledgement of reality.

    This might mean intercultural exchange with deep appreciation of the gift and sacredness of difference. This might mean Jews and Palestinians living together (as they already are in rarely reported-upon such communities already successfully underway). This means civil disobedience. This means a very different kind of theology. A god of love and not fear. This is not quaint or romantic; it is a matter of survival and necessity. The fact that these practices have and do work is proof of their “reality.” They cannot be merely explained by “personal choice” nor by “moral mandate.” They are both choice and mandate and something quite undefinable and beyond either. I cannot show this through argument but by my own creative and courageous and compassionate demonstration.

    Citizen Zeus

  31. on 30 Jul 2007 at 1:51 pm 31. JP Stormcrow said …

    I thought this piece from Talking Points Memo today might be of interest. I will certainly give Obama credit for his willingness to take on the right-wing/Republican link head on.

    Obama Corresponds To David Brody — Denounces Merging Of Religion And GOP
    In a new e-mail interview with David Brody, political blogger for Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, Barack Obama stood by his rhetoric that faith has been “hijacked” by the religious right: “When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you’re implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you’re attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends.”