Comments on: Southern Conference: Focus on Faith http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:55:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Nemo http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-19129 Nemo Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:29:30 +0000 /?p=335#comment-19129 Those evangelical conservatives seem to be caught up on the concept of adhering to the sanctity of marriage. Just a few thoughts about this... sanc·ti·ty (sngkt-t) n. pl. sanc·ti·ties 1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred. ——————————————————————————– [Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.] I believe in the sanctity of marriage inasmuch as the two who join together adhere to the purposes and commitment that marriage requires. I agree with the exclusive nature many churches and faiths use to determine who they will or will not marry, as they must ensure that those being married adhere to what that religious body believes to be sacred in marriage. Such exclusions can be along the lines of religious affiliation, commitment to rear children within the specific religion, etc. Just as I, not being a member of the Roman Catholic faith could never be married by a Roman Catholic Priest in a Cathedral without committing myself to rearing our children within the Catholic church, the church that I attend would maintain similar exclusions and would likely refuse to marry someone outside of the set of beliefs that we hold fast to. I believe that is where the sanctity of marriage should be upheld, where the spiritual nature of marriage is taught and supported. I also think that monogamy is a beneficial social control that anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, would be best adhering to. With that thought in mind, would it not behove the State to permit and encourage recognized Civil Unions between two individuals regardless of affiliation and allow the various religious bodies to recognize whether or not the union can be categorized as a marriage? The State, being seperated from religious authority, cannot enforce sanctity. It can, however, enforce equal access to be given to those adhering to the rules of monogamy and lifelong commitment through the recognition of Civil Unions universally, right? I welcome anyone’s comments and encourage discussion of this. I consider myself a moral conservative, but also acknowledge that my cultural background values different standards over those prioritized by others. Because of this acknoweldgement, I consider myself a socio-political liberal, or perhaps moderate, because I see access to State controlled benefits through law and policy to have its foundation laid in secular philosophy. Those evangelical conservatives seem to be caught up on the concept of adhering to the sanctity of marriage. Just a few thoughts about this…

sanc·ti·ty (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
——————————————————————————–
[Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.]

I believe in the sanctity of marriage inasmuch as the two who join together adhere to the purposes and commitment that marriage requires. I agree with the exclusive nature many churches and faiths use to determine who they will or will not marry, as they must ensure that those being married adhere to what that religious body believes to be sacred in marriage. Such exclusions can be along the lines of religious affiliation, commitment to rear children within the specific religion, etc. Just as I, not being a member of the Roman Catholic faith could never be married by a Roman Catholic Priest in a Cathedral without committing myself to rearing our children within the Catholic church, the church that I attend would maintain similar exclusions and would likely refuse to marry someone outside of the set of beliefs that we hold fast to. I believe that is where the sanctity of marriage should be upheld, where the spiritual nature of marriage is taught and supported. I also think that monogamy is a beneficial social control that anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, would be best adhering to. With that thought in mind, would it not behove the State to permit and encourage recognized Civil Unions between two individuals regardless of affiliation and allow the various religious bodies to recognize whether or not the union can be categorized as a marriage? The State, being seperated from religious authority, cannot enforce sanctity. It can, however, enforce equal access to be given to those adhering to the rules of monogamy and lifelong commitment through the recognition of Civil Unions universally, right?

I welcome anyone’s comments and encourage discussion of this. I consider myself a moral conservative, but also acknowledge that my cultural background values different standards over those prioritized by others. Because of this acknoweldgement, I consider myself a socio-political liberal, or perhaps moderate, because I see access to State controlled benefits through law and policy to have its foundation laid in secular philosophy.

]]> By: MPH http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-2706 MPH Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:30:29 +0000 /?p=335#comment-2706 The left already has its mysticisms - bound up in State-worship and the numbing drum-beat of environmentalism/global warming.. Wake up - the collectivist socialist left and the neo-con religious right have more in common than either wants to admit. The left already has its mysticisms – bound up in State-worship and the numbing drum-beat of environmentalism/global warming..

Wake up – the collectivist socialist left and the neo-con religious right have more in common than either wants to admit.

]]> By: spyder http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-2473 spyder Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:49:25 +0000 /?p=335#comment-2473 The South has a very long history of religious intolerance, dating well back to times of indigenous population warfare. The colonial times saw great upheavals between Catholics and Protestants, and it is only being polite to say that indigenous and african religions were never valued. The rise of Masonic power in the US, esp. post Civil War led to purges of Catholic and Jewish communities. Contrary to the common thinking, Catholic and Jewish persons were lynched by members of the KKK who were equally disdainful of people of those faiths as they were of the african americans. And yet, in the mix of all this hatred, some profound populist and progressive theological notions have been generated in the South. The Bible Belt below the Mason Dixon line was home to spiritual inspiration and innovation as much as it was to deep racial hatred and intolerance. Progressivism is not a lost cause in the South. Tapping into its roots there is a necessary step in re-crafting democracy in the USA. The South has a very long history of religious intolerance, dating well back to times of indigenous population warfare. The colonial times saw great upheavals between Catholics and Protestants, and it is only being polite to say that indigenous and african religions were never valued. The rise of Masonic power in the US, esp. post Civil War led to purges of Catholic and Jewish communities. Contrary to the common thinking, Catholic and Jewish persons were lynched by members of the KKK who were equally disdainful of people of those faiths as they were of the african americans. And yet, in the mix of all this hatred, some profound populist and progressive theological notions have been generated in the South. The Bible Belt below the Mason Dixon line was home to spiritual inspiration and innovation as much as it was to deep racial hatred and intolerance. Progressivism is not a lost cause in the South. Tapping into its roots there is a necessary step in re-crafting democracy in the USA.

]]> By: dearkitty http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-2470 dearkitty Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:35:28 +0000 /?p=335#comment-2470 More on this: http://tinyurl.com/3m65f More on this: http://tinyurl.com/3m65f

]]> By: Jim http://thinkprogress.org/2005/02/25/southern-conference-focus-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-2466 Jim Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:17:23 +0000 /?p=335#comment-2466 This is an interesting post -- but why bother? Progressivism is a lost cause in the south. We need to reclaim the rust belt - Ohio, West Virginia etc. No point wasting our time in Mississippi. This is an interesting post — but why bother? Progressivism is a lost cause in the south. We need to reclaim the rust belt – Ohio, West Virginia etc. No point wasting our time in Mississippi.

]]>