Monday, July 06, 2009

Last word on Veldheer, EBO and those Catholic bishops too

JLW over at Olyblog has the last good word on Veldheer:

When the Citizens for a Responsive Local Government were considering Karen's candidacy (by the way, she did eventually receive the CRLG's endorsement), we were aware of Karen's religious affiliation, and speculated about whether it would impact policy decisions at the city. So I called her up and asked her about it. She told me that it wouldn't be an issue, that she had no objection to same sex partner benefits. She and I had quite an interesting discussion about faith, and tolerance. Karen strikes me as an honest and genuine person. I trust her. I'm surprised that this is even an issue. Are we afraid that every Catholic politician is going to do his or her best to ban birth control? Are we afraid that Jewish politicians will insist that everyone have a bris? I just don't see any red flags here.


Janet (?) does a much better job explaining than Karen did, but her explanation does open up more questions for me about CRLG's endorsement process. Since it was so early in the season, it would have been great for them to provide the metadata surrounding their suggestions, including this story. They considered a lot of factors, and since their for responsive (and I assume open) city government, more details about what information they gathered would have been great.

Also, just a note to show that even us Catholics have crappy representation in our church hierarchy, just like Karen's church:

The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), which "represents the Catholic Bishops of the State of Washington on issues of public policy", has posted a link to this notice on the main page of their website (hyperlinks are mine).

...

Opposing "unjust discrimination" implies that some discrimination is justified, that it can be just to discriminate. According to the bishops of Washington, it is just to destabilize and undermine LGBT families. The bishops believe it just to disadvantage children by preventing their LGBT parents from protecting them to the fullest extent of the law via domestic partnerships or marriage.

3 comments:

cytoplasm said...

"just a note to show that even us Catholics have crappy representation in our church hierarchy, just like Karen's church"

Dang, man. There you go again. You sort of mentioned in one of your posts that the denomination she belongs to doesn't address social issues and then began to attack her. Can't have it both ways, like the Roman church does, I say. The OPC doesn't really deal with social (state) issues because it is not their business. Isn't this satisfying? I find it to be. They spend their time dealing with matters of the church, not the state (unlike so many other denominations). Their entry on homosexuality was turned to address those being ordained who deny Christ (and later their pos on gay marriage, etc) which is really more important. Again, their focus was on matters of the church. They didn't address what happens outside the church. That is where their authority ends. This, by nature, is often counter-cultural and now unfortunately it is controversial.

This isn't crappy representation. It is consistent and historical according to their tradition, which they say is Biblical. Why else would they quote a doc written in the 1600's which then has reference to the New Testament?

Neither is this homophobic. Saying homosexuality is wrong (or sinful) does not mean the person saying it is homophobic. That type of logic is nauseating. Saying you uphold your denomination's notion of marriage does not mean you cannot operate in the civil/earthly jurisdiction with tolerance and civility toward those that think and behave differently than you. Think about the definition of tolerance please.

Emmett said...

So when her church writes in support of capital punishment (http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=298), they're saying that the church itself should kill criminals, not the civil authorities?

cytoplasm said...

I finally took the time to read the OPC link you provided. I'm not sure how anyone can even ask "So when her church writes in support of capital punishment,they're saying that the church itself should kill criminals, not the civil authorities?" after actually reading what they said on that page.

They specifically said that the church does not wield that sword. That sword is granted to the state to exercise, not the church. The "death penalty" within the church would be excommunication.

It amazes me which things people have chosen to attack Karen with. Her denominational affiliation and whether or not she believes all these things seems pretty stupid. Why not exercise the same standard upon everyone else? The fear of a Christian women running for office is foremost what I see. That fear leads you all to believe she will do things that she and her denomination do not necessarily condone. You all do not see, nor do you want to understand, the clear separation of the two-kingdom approach.

So what if her denomination believes in capital punishment. Do you believe man is a free moral agent? Should man be held responsible for the moral choices they make? Is man worthy of praise and punishment? If man does good do we not praise him for his actions? But when man does evil it is taboo now to punish him for his actions? How about some consistency. That punishment might be death (a justice carried out by the state). If man is not responsible for his actions then how can he be deserving of any form of punishment or praise?

You don't even have to see what her church says about this issue. How you answer the above questions really says a lot about one's view of mankind. If man is not responsible, and therefore should not receive praise or punishment, then he has become a mere machine. That is a very low view of mankind. But if you see him as a free moral agent then he is worthy of consequences (good and bad). As the state has the sword to punish evildoers then sometimes that might be death. It is just a matter of fact.