Deb Landgraf:

I hope you don't mind me "sharing!" Father John Dietzen said in the article "Judging and Condemning Others" that "some people have just enough faith to believe in a God who judges us, but not enough to believe in a God who loves us. So they believe their surest way of pleasing God is to judge others as well." Father Dietzen also said that "we have a direct and serious command of our Lord not to judge another." I see this as closely tied to our topic since so many presume to judge others and explain it through religious beliefs. I think your statement Sharron nails this point: Intolerance and bigotry are not rendered legitimate because they are expressed as religious beliefs.

Deb, are you trying to trap me by employing one of my own tactics against me?  If so, it worked.  I can't resist the "red meat" of your above post. LOL

You might want to read the entire passage from which Father Dietzen lifted his oft-quoted line.  It's found in Matthew 7:1-6, and the gist of the entire passage is that it is hypocritical to judge others unless we have judged ourselves first.  In fact, verse 5 directs us to judge others -- but only after we have rightly judged ourselves.  Strictly speaking, Jesus was directing his words to the Jews, but if we're going to apply them to us today (as Father Dietzen is doing), we should consider the entire passage and not lift a single sentence out of context, in my perhaps slightly less than humble opinion.  So according to what I believe is the plain reading of the passage, we are definitely permitted to judge each other, provided we have judged ourselves first.  Obviously this takes a lot of the fun out of it, and it's easier just to not judge anyone -- including ourselves.

Are you (and Sharron) suggesting that it is never proper to judge others?  Are you saying that people who judge others are doing something wrong?  Isn't that being sort of, well, judgmental? Or is it only improper when that judgment is based on something called "religious beliefs?"  Is it acceptable to pour out wholesale judgment -- just so long as that judgment is based on secular values? 

Just between us, I think that people don't like judgment because judgment suggests that there is a standard somewhere that we're falling short of.  I would like to think that I am without error, that what I do is always right, and when someone suggests that I'm not right, it's a serious blow to my ego.  It hurts, and the little prideful ego guy within me would like for people to refrain from judging me.  When Dave mentions the Code of Hama hama hama ... rahdi (or something -- I'm too lazy to look up the correct spelling), he's suggesting a standard that I am no doubt falling short of, so he's judging me.  Make him stop.  (I'm imagining two kids arguing...  Mommmm!  Dave is judging me again!  Make him stop!)

I'll make a deal with everyone:  Don't judge me and I won't judge you.  There.  Now none of us will have to suffer, and we'll all live together in peace and happiness.  There may be a standard somewhere, but if nobody tells me about it, it's as if it doesn't exist.  From henceforth, everyone here do and say whatever feels right to you.  Don't worry -- nobody will judge you, because issues of right and wrong must necessarily involve existential (and thereby religious) issues, and we have forbidden judgment relative to those matters, so --  I guess we're all totally free!  All skate!

P.S.  Don't get mad at me, Deb.  I liked your post.  I just used it as a jumping off place to throw out some bull and have some fun with everyone.

Dave Hanson:

Clonnie Yearout:

I'm sure you all would agree with me that the "man half" of our species generally harbors a deep-seated and unnatural hatred for cats.

No, I do not agree.  I have two cats, love one, like the other.  Ricky ignores them both.  Lib tolerates one and hates the other (the feeling is mutual).  Generalizations about cats, dogs and humans are just that.  Generalizations.  Feilines, canines, humans... we are all individuals.

Perhaps hatred of cats among men is not as widespread as I suggested, Dave, but it's out there.  Whenever you're in a relaxed group of men sometime, try this experiment:  Make any nonchalant, neutral statement about a cat.  More often than not, some guy will say something on the order of, "Argh!  D___ cats!  I hate 'em!"   Whereupon several other men in the group will chime in, "Yeah, that's right!  D___ cats ain't worth a cup o' spit!"   

It seems to be an inborn trait of some men that they feel like they're expected to favor dogs and hate cats.  In their little insecure world, real men like dogs, sissies like cats.  The women will know what I'm talking about.  They know instinctively that if they precede their loving mate to that great litter box in the sky, their hubby will boot Tabby out the door as soon as he gets back from the funeral.  Men sometimes say they like a cat, just to keep peace in the home, but it takes a real man (like me) to unabashedly like a cat.  Unlike some of my insecure brethren, I am confident in my manhood and do not have to badmouth cats to have status within my group.  The men around me see my affinity for felines as the mark of a mature, complete, man's man, and they all desire to someday be able to pet a cat without blanching.  Few of them will succeed, for only the manliest of men are cat whisperers.

Clonnie Yearout:

I would like to think that I am without error, that what I do is always right, and when someone suggests that I'm not right, it's a serious blow to my ego.... Don't get mad at me, Deb.  I liked your post.  I just used it as a jumping off place to throw out some bull and have some fun with everyone.

Too much caffeine, or too much sugar?  You're not without error, but don't let it get you down.  Get a nonjudgmental canine if you want to be worshiped as a demigod. 

P.S. Did you like Hammurabi's rule about firefighters?

Clonnie Yearout:

You might want to read the entire passage from which Father Dietzen lifted his oft-quoted line.  It's found in Matthew 7:1-6, and the gist of the entire passage is that it is hypocritical to judge others unless we have judged ourselves first.  In fact, verse 5 directs us to judge others -- but only after we have rightly judged ourselves.  ... we should consider the entire passage and not lift a single sentence out of context, in my perhaps slightly less than humble opinion.  So according to what I believe is the plain reading of the passage, we are definitely permitted to judge each other, provided we have judged ourselves first.  Obviously this takes a lot of the fun out of it, and it's easier just to not judge anyone -- including ourselves.

Are you (and Sharron) suggesting that it is never proper to judge others?  Are you saying that people who judge others are doing something wrong?  Isn't that being sort of, well, judgmental? Or is it only improper when that judgment is based on something called "religious beliefs?"  Is it acceptable to pour out wholesale judgment -- just so long as that judgment is based on secular values? 

Just between us, I think that people don't like judgment because judgment suggests that there is a standard somewhere that we're falling short of.  ...I'll make a deal with everyone:  Don't judge me and I won't judge you.  ...Don't worry -- nobody will judge you, because issues of right and wrong must necessarily involve existential (and thereby religious) issues, and we have forbidden judgment relative to those matters, so --  I guess we're all totally free!  All skate!

P.S.  Don't get mad at me, Deb.  I liked your post.  I just used it as a jumping off place to throw out some bull and have some fun with everyone.

 

Clonnie - I think we will have to respectfully agree to see this differently. Religions have their own ways of interpreting things. Father Dietzen's article was related to scripture by was not in my opinion intended to quote it per se. I think he was sharing a philosophy that would not be shared by all religions. I think seeing the faults of others and trying to help is much different than judging them. I don't believe that any of us are qualified to judge another and are not privy to the plan God has for that individual. I don't like judging others not because of "falling short" as you say, but rather because it is not my role. So, I hope I answered your question, "...is it only improper when that judgment is based on something called "religious beliefs?" 

The humor of my earlier post on this topic did not escape me Clonnie. By posting my opinion on not being judgmental, I sounded judgmental!!! I guess that goes along with the territory of sharing our opinions on VoV. Truly, not being judgmental is sometimes a challenge. Deb

 

 

Clonnie Yearout:

  Are you (and Sharron) suggesting that it is never proper to judge others?  Are you saying that people who judge others are doing something wrong?  Isn't that being sort of, well, judgmental? Or is it only improper when that judgment is based on something called "religious beliefs?"  Is it acceptable to pour out wholesale judgment -- just so long as that judgment is based on secular values? 

 

 Dear Mr. C,

I would never suggest that anything you do is improper!  We have the freedom choose our faith and beliefs.  The fact that I disagree with your or any one's beliefs is not judgmental.  However, when religious or secular beliefs label an entire group of citizens unworthy or inferior based on immutable human characteristics, I can and do consider that particular judgement intolerant and discriminatory.  When individuals attempt to turn religious judgments into law, I call that theocratic and unconstitutional.  Regardless of your view or my view on the moral rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and gender identity, individuals remain citizens and are afforded the  full rights and privileges afforded to you and me.  I do not question your right to make moral judgments, but these judgments should not be imposed on others.    

This issue for me is the fundamental issue of the separation of church and state.  The state and government should remain secular -- render unto Caesar ---  freedom for religion also means freedom from religion.   

Clonnie Yearout:

I'll make a deal with everyone:  Don't judge me and I won't judge you.  There.  Now none of us will have to suffer, and we'll all live together in peace and happiness.  There may be a standard somewhere, but if nobody tells me about it, it's as if it doesn't exist.  From henceforth, everyone here do and say whatever feels right to you.  Don't worry -- nobody will judge you, because issues of right and wrong must necessarily involve existential (and thereby religious) issues, and we have forbidden judgment relative to those matters, so --  I guess we're all totally free!  All skate!

 

The First Amendment pretty well agrees that we can say pretty much whatever we feel like.  Our laws pretty much define whether what we do is right or wrong.  We each develop a personal moral code that causes us to shun some behaviors or actions even though not illegal.  I do not judge homosexuality any differently than I do gender in general.  I accept and acknowledge that others see gender differently.  No judgment -- no right or wrong.  Wrong only comes when you or I move our beliefs and opinions into actions that demean, demonize, or marginalize a group of citizens for no reason other than sexual orientation -- not as individuals --but because of immutable human qualities like race, gender, size/weight, or country of origin.

While I do not agree with you, I am not going to engage in a campaign to force your congregation to accept gay individuals into your church, to insist your minister serve them the Lord's Supper, or to force your minister to marry or provide funeral services for them in your sanctuary.  (I suspect all of these things have happened in your church, you just did not know the individual was gay or it was only suspected -- not acknowledged.)  Such actions would be unconstitutional and would violate freedom of religion.  That would be judgmental, would be forcing secular beliefs on religion, and would be wrong. 

Sometimes I think you do your "black or white" position statements to create a diversion away from the fundamental issues.  You know like in boxing -- jab ----- jab ------- feint ----- duck --- TKO.   

Sharron        

P.S.  One of the troubling interviews I heard on NPR several years ago was a discussion with several gay individuals.  Both were Christians and discussed how difficult it was to find a congregation in which they felt comfortable and in which they felt welcome to worship.  We are shutting the doors to our churches and turning away Christians, Clonnie, and that bothers me a lot.  I judge that to be wrong.    

Clonnie Yearout:

It seems to be an inborn trait of some men that they feel like they're expected to favor dogs and hate cats.  In their little insecure world, real men like dogs, sissies like cats. 

 

Mr. C,

I think there is a general cultural or societal disregard or suspicion of cats.  Most people feel this way because they have never owned or gotten to know cats.  Guys do tend to dislike felines.  It is not because they are sissies -- it is because they are so independent and even dismissive to humans.  Cats do not recognize a master -- the cat is the master. 

         "If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat."  Mark Twain

Sharron

Sharron Smith:

Cats do not recognize a master -- the cat is the master. 

Only if a human allows it.  Some do, Dave doesn't.

Joe Campbell:

I was shocked (shocked, I say!) to see that you increased the dosage to a group hug.  It is well known that over-application of SAMH¹ therapy to the hug-deprived often produces negative side-effects, including giggles, warm-fuzzy-feelings toward mankind, and (gasp!) a giddy felicity. These are not behaviors that we've come to know and love in Clonnie, and that, if persistent, could dilute his value to this forum.  I can only hope that if he was thus affected, he makes a speedy recovery.

BTW, Clonnie, in an attempt to counteract the overwhelming effects of the SAMH, I issued an UGH! instead.  I hope it helped.

Joe

¹SAMH: Simultaneously Applied Multiple Hug

 

Dear Mr. Joe,

Please forgive my slip up!  I had a brief episode of a flashback to the days surrounding Woodstock.  You know ---- When youngsters stuck flowers into rifle barrels, folk songs asked where have all the flowers gone, when groupies hugged and did a lot of other things, and for a brief moment in time we really believed love could bring peace to the world. 

I must say as a mother and now grandmother, I have found a hug -- single or group -- often takes care of a lot of things.  In fact I have often felt Clonnie's curmudgeonly growls may stem from getting too many ughs and not enough hugs.   

Aged Flower Child, Sharron

Sharron Smith:

must say as a mother and now grandmother, I have found a hug -- single or group -- often takes care of a lot of things.  In fact I have often felt Clonnie's curmudgeonly growls may stem from getting too many ughs and not enough hugs.

I have it on good authority that Pawp Yearout gets plenty of hugs.  His dark side sometimes slips out in online discussion, but my canine instinct tells me it is often just a role he likes to play.  One should remember not to take him any more seriously than he takes himself.  In my opinion, he needs a canine companion.  A lab or golden retriever would be good, I think.

Staying on topic, rumor has it Luanne and Deb are "cat quick" on a tennis court. Hustle in spades, focus is a given, and they are the best dang blue chip, up and coming players in three counties. Tennis ball machines blow a fuse at the sight of the two with a racket in their hand...I swear. Buy stock now, before it is too costly. Great to see the effort, and to know they are walking the "healthy" walk, and not just talking it. Makes me proud to step on the court with them. Gip

Sharron Smith:

One of the troubling interviews I heard on NPR several years ago was a discussion with several gay individuals.  Both were Christians and discussed how difficult it was to find a congregation in which they felt comfortable and in which they felt welcome to worship.  We are shutting the doors to our churches and turning away Christians, Clonnie, and that bothers me a lot.  I judge that to be wrong.

I think we probably have at least some points of agreement on this subject, Sharron.  Separation of church and state is very important to me, but while the church may not (and should not) dictate to the state, I believe the church should act as a sort of conscience for the people of the state.  Churches in America should be free to advocate for just about anything, so long as we the people are free to accept or reject their positions.  Everyone has a philosophy of life that has been shaped by a multitude of forces, only one of which is religion, and every individual who serves in government cannot help but exhibit the traits of who they are.  Government can't be totally divorced from religion because governments are made up of people, but in a free society the government will always reflect the religiosity of its citizens, at least to some degree.

In the example you gave above from the NPR program, I do not think it unusual that two individuals with unorthodox views would find difficulty in locating a church group willing to accept them.  Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are lifestyles, and do not equate to race or gender.  Lifestyles may be practiced or not practiced -- at the will of the individual possessing them.  Some heterosexuals make the decision to live their lives without practicing their sexuality, and homosexuals should be able to do so as well if they want to be accepted into a group that considers their activity to be wrong.  Most churches do not reject people, they reject actions, and actions may be modified  by any individual wishing to become part of the group.   Most churches would say that it's wrong to tell a lie, yet churches are filled with liars.  Everyone is aware of this fact, yet the liars are accepted into the fellowship.  Most churches would say that adultery is wrong, yet adulterers sit in church pews every Sunday.  What's the difference?  Why are they allowed fellowship while the practicing homosexuals are rejected?  The difference is that the liars and adulterers are not trying to force the churches to sanction their actions.

All the churches that I am aware of extend this courtesy to all sorts of malefactors constantly.  Churches are filled every Sunday with hypocrites,  adulterers, fornicators, thieves, slanderers, haters, cheaters, and perpetrators of every other evil imaginable.  A church is like a hospital -- you only go there for two reasons: to visit or to get well.  You don't go to a hospital and try to change it into a hotel, and you don't go to a church and try to change the tenents that make it a church.  Speaking for myself, I have been in church all my life, but I am never a visitor.  I go there for healing, and I stand a better chance of being healed if I agree with the church about the treatment for my illness.  Those who are guilty of no wrongdoing have no need of a church in the first place. 

Clonnie Yearout:

Churches are filled every Sunday with hypocrites,  adulterers, fornicators, thieves, slanderers, haters, cheaters, and perpetrators of every other evil imaginable.  A church is like a hospital -- you only go there for two reasons: to visit or to get well. 

 

 

Wow...you mean all of those people are in church???  Guess I'll have to start watching what kind of people I associate with. 

Just kidding....well spoken, you're right on target and I agree.

I hope all have read Norb’s excellent, Technicolor, “on-the money,” top of the hill” piece on the Op Ed page in the morning RT. 

 

Norb,

A really great job! My congratulations comes with a great, big

 

 

 

H   U   G!

 

 

I am betting you will even get one from Joe for this one!

Sharron

 

Clonnie Yearout:

Most churches would say that adultery is wrong, yet adulterers sit in church pews every Sunday.  What's the difference?  Why are they allowed fellowship while the practicing homosexuals are rejected?  The difference is that the liars and adulterers are not trying to force the churches to sanction their actions.

 

I think this is where both our faith and opinions disagree.  Liars and adulterers choose to be liars and adulterers -- homosexuals do not get to choose whether they are homosexual or straight.  The difference between the two is we either accept individuals as God created them -- or we reject them based on extra-religious standards that we devise.  You do not have to accept them in your church -- but your conscience does not have to be accepted in society and does not determine citizenship rights.  Separation of church and state (to me) says you may practice your faith but may not impose its beliefs on others -- even on homosexuals.  The idea that the church decides what is a sanctioned practice seems to run counter to the concept of the law of the land.  It may set sanctions for members but can not demand those sanctions be practiced as discrimination in the larger society.   

The church of my younger years offered compassion, understanding, acceptance -- not a set of conditions that must be met before joining the membership.   Humanity comes in many forms with immutable characteristics -- if we accept that all are God's creations -- how can we decide that one is inferior and subject to extra sanctions because we think God got the formula wrong for this person -- He created a reject.  Does a homosexual become worthy of salvation when he lies about who he is?  Does lying make him more or less a sinner?  Worthy of more, less, or no compassion? 

I go to church to be renewed, to be inspired to be a better person, to find understanding when bad things happen to good people.  I do not go to church to hear denouncements of others, social agendas, or political agendas.  The church is a sanctuary -- secular issues are one's I must decide -- my understanding of my faith helps me make those decisions.  I do not go to a church that sets sanctions,  demands certain conditions for membership, and prescribes how I should think about events and issues.  All ideas are welcome but none are established as dogma --- all who wish to worship are welcome.  No gender, political, philosophical, or religious litmus test required. 

Sorry, heavy stuff gets overwhelming --let's move on to Norb's editorial in today's paper.

Weary Sharron 

Sharron Smith:

However, when religious or secular beliefs label an entire group of citizens unworthy or inferior based on immutable human characteristics, I can and do consider that particular judgment intolerant and discriminatory.  When individuals attempt to turn religious judgments into law, I call that theocratic and unconstitutional. 

 

Sharron Smith:

One of the troubling interviews I heard on NPR several years ago was a discussion with several gay individuals.  Both were Christians and discussed how difficult it was to find a congregation in which they felt comfortable and in which they felt welcome to worship.  We are shutting the doors to our churches and turning away Christians

Sharron Smith:

I go to church to be renewed, to be inspired to be a better person, to find understanding when bad things happen to good people.  I do not go to church to hear denouncements of others, social agendas, or political agendas.  The church is a sanctuary -- secular issues are one's I must decide -- my understanding of my faith helps me make those decisions.  I do not go to a church that sets sanctions,  demands certain conditions for membership, and prescribes how I should think about events and issues.

Sharron,

I could not quote everything you said, but agreed 100% with all of it. I too mentioned earlier, but not in my official post, that this may come down to separation of church and state. "Religious judgments" should not be turned into law. The issue of sexual orientation and gender identity is one in which too many churches have gotten behind the issue and financially supported particular candidates. I don't think church involvement in politics is appropriate. I also think it is a reason why younger generations are drifting away from organized religion. What kind of a statement is it when gays (largely supported by the younger generations) feel unwelcome in churches? 

Getting back to our original question, I cannot understand why some cannot support a law that adds acts of violence towards individuals based on sexual orientation to the list of federal hate crimes. Government has a role to protect citizens, including those in targeted groups--regardless of church opinion. It seems that not wanting to protect them is unconscionable. 

Deb    

 

P.S. Norb--I too enjoyed your article today!!!