Jon Meacham’s ascension to the editor’s chair at Newsweek has marked a very noticeable trend toward turning it into Opinion Week (or OpEdWeek). Its cover stories are often not investigative news pieces, but long editorials. This week, religion reporter Lisa Miller uncorked "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," and Meacham's Editor's Note dared the religious right to protest, like President Bush egging on the terrorists to "bring it on." Meacham clearly sees his magazine as a crusading progressive weekly:
The reaction to this cover is not difficult to predict. Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their "agenda," a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward.)
The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.
Translation: We are the dreamers and makers of history. Religious conservatives are troglodytes on the wrong side of history. This conclusion reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s 1982 Harvard Educational Review article where she argued marriage was an example of a rights-depriving institution like slavery and the Indian reservation system. Meacham’s ending could be read to suggest that "the sacrament of marriage" belongs on the ash heap of history alongside segregation as a "clear wrong."
The other jaw-dropping paragraph for the religious right is this very liberal passage about the Bible:
No matter what one thinks about gay rights – for, against or somewhere in between – this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt – it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.
Put aside politics for a moment, and let’s take as an example the Christian belief that Jesus is God. On that point, would Meacham write that to argue that this is so "because it is in the Bible is intellectually bankrupt"?
Perhaps Meacham falls back on this argument because suggesting the Bible backs gay marriage is like saying the Whole Earth Catalog was an advertisement for Big Oil and the plastics industry.
As a liberal Episcopalian, Meacham began his Editor’s Note by lashing out against "Rev. Robert Duncan and other leaders of the conservative forces of reaction" is his faith tradition, and ended up suggesting that it’s "unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition" that anyone would mistake the Bible as a book anyone would "resort to" as an authority. Meacham suggested the conservative "forces of reaction" were like the Devil, or to be more generous, like slavery advocates and segregationists:
Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice – a matter of behavior – but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color. The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals. This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously – though many, many people do – since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts. The Devil, as Shakespeare once noted, can cite Scripture for his purpose, and the texts have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women, among other things that few people in the first decade of the 21st century would think reasonable.
Mollie Z. Hemingway at the Get Religion blog is stunned at all of Meacham's dismissive notes about the "unserious" conservative argument:
Meacham’s note is an unserious response to conservative Christian views or conservative political views related to homosexuality. He assumes that Miller in any way understands Scripture when her piece was riddled with obvious errors. He compares world-wide, millennia-long support for heterosexual marriage with the post-Civil War anomaly of racist marriage laws (What I have called the Loving Corollary to Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)...
What a scold. And the fact that, as a progressive, he seemingly doesn’t realize he’s a scold makes it so much worse. Has he ever spoken with a conservative? Does he know anyone who disagrees with his religious views from a more orthodox perspective? Doubling down on Miller’s hackery with this arrogant editor’s note reveals that Newsweek is willing to sacrifice everything from factual accuracy to basic civility in service to its agenda. And if the word “agenda” isn’t appropriate, it’s only because it understates what we’re dealing with.
Read everything she's written on this. Mollie's even harsher about the Lisa Miller cover story:
It is no exaggeration to say the piece was an embarrassment. My analysis of the belly flop is here. On a radio show yesterday, the host asked me whether the piece was more offensive to my sensibilities as a journalist or a Christian. I went with "journalist" since the piece wasn’t anywhere legitimate enough, theologically speaking, to be considered seriously. As a journalist, it violated almost every rule in the book. It failed to accurately represent the viewpoint being scrutinized. It was riddled with errors. It was driven by emotion. More than a few journalists -- one at a competing weekly news magazine -- wrote to me yesterday asking, "Where was her editor?"
Answer: he was right there, loving every line of it.
[Photo from Meacham's blog on The Daily Beast]
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I've noticed
December 9, 2008 - 09:02 ET by 10ksnookerEven the doctor's offices locally have stopped their subscriptions of Newsweak. They now have the free ad supported news flyers for people to read while listening to the drill go round.
um...
December 9, 2008 - 09:10 ET by candanceHistory and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion
Prop 8 passed in one of the most progressive states of the union, so I'm not sure where he's going with this...
Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery
He's right ya know, that William Wilbeforce was a terrible person.
It's always a treat to get lectutred on the Bible from someone who hates the Bible.
I'm a typical white person.
the public school history
December 9, 2008 - 18:42 ET by TruthMongerthe public school history that LIBERALS taught me never favored immorality
Dominate education now
Where do liberals get the
December 9, 2008 - 19:06 ET by misterbee241Where do liberals get the idea that Christianity is exclusive? Jesus preached to every one, BUT - he also told them to repent. I think that's where the liberals have problems - if you're not a sinner you have no need of repentence, therefore you can be included. Am I wrong? Somebody help me here.
The beginning of the end of
December 9, 2008 - 19:12 ET by misterbee241The beginning of the end of slavery started in the pulpits of England and America. Scripture never justified slavery, but, knowing the degradation of the human heart, God told slave masters to at least treat their slaves in a decent manner. He even gave his OT people guidlines for the treatment of slaves. But look at where the slave-holding people are now - in the dustbin of history.
The Bible is like the internet - you can find anything in there to refute or support a position - IF - you take it out of context. Text taken out of context is pretext. The scripture used to justify slavery were most definitely taken out of context. But then, a slave who could neither read or write wouldnt know that would he?
The scriptures condemning homosexuality in both the OT and the NT are their own context. You dont need to go back or forward several verses to understand their meaning. I mean - "homosexuality is an abomination", "a homosexual will not enter the kingdom of Heaven." I mean, what is there to ponder over? Homosexuality is a sin - period.
Oh!
December 9, 2008 - 09:15 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingI keep hearing this argument that "we're on the right side, the numbers are on our side".
Funny, one of the most progressive states in the union can't pass the legislation and yet, somehow, SOMEHOW, every state in the nation is on "their" side.
How exactly does that work?
Oh and happy "A Day Without Gay" day! Why is it again this movement has actually lost credibility?? I wonder....
How it works
December 9, 2008 - 09:48 ET by moderncommentaries83Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
mc83...
December 9, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Clear thinker"Wonder if the Prop. 8 folks would trade an Obama presidency for same-sex marriage..."
I guess it all depends on how horny they are.
Giovanni’s “Smelly Turd Award” Winner
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I understand you meant
December 10, 2008 - 08:49 ET by AshleeI understand you meant that in humor (and I did chuckle) but in all fairness, that's a bold and crass statement. People need to understand sexual orientation isn't dependent on 'how horny one is.' Frankly, it has only to do with the certain aspects of human appeal that one fancies.
I know the gay pride parade crowd does little to help their case, but to judge the whole of homosexuality by the acts of that small group in the homosexual general population is the same as infering that since most gangsta rappers convicted of violent crimes and promoting such behaviors, all African Americans *must* be naturally more violent.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Open minded
December 9, 2008 - 09:18 ET by KC MulvilleWhen Meacham said "Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion," he metaphorically stopped his ears. He just broadcast that he wasn't interested in listening to opposing points of view.
But the worst part of it is that it's such an obvious straw man. Meacham sets the argument that the opposition to gay marriage comes from interpretations of the bible. (Hint: that's not where it comes from. If anything, throughout history, the bible has joined the opposition, but not created it.) Then, having pulled a fast one in creating his own dragon, Meacham journalistically slays his dragon ... trying to leave the impression that he has rebutted all opposition to gay marriage.
Well maybe if they can
December 9, 2008 - 09:28 ET by motherbeltHistory and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion,
Well there you go. The debate is over. There is a "consensus."
Heck then why
December 9, 2008 - 09:31 ET by taterHeck then why vote...history and demographics shown that only old white men should be president. McCain should be in instead of Obama.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
We don't even need a consensus
December 9, 2008 - 09:49 ET by KC MulvilleAll we need is that the numbers are "moving in the right direction." If, ten years ago, the polls said that 75% of the public was against gay marriage, but now contemporary polls only have that number at 70% ... well ... the die is cast ... it's an inevitable "wave" of support building.
In a mid-summer(?) NewsBusters post, Judge Judy went on The View and used that argument ... which only confirms several things about Judge Judy. People actually fall for this argument!
More inclusion (except you Christian types)....
December 9, 2008 - 15:46 ET by bpjamSure, they want to be 'inclusive' as long as it doesn't include those who disagree with them, those on the Right, those who ARE religious or anybody who runs a business which isn't unionized.
Meacham is a tool. And not the useful kinda tool.
Meacham's words display cowardice.
December 9, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Mike Bratton"Let the letters and e-mails come"?
Yes, by all means, you stay cloistered in your skyscraper and bark at those of us who are Christians about how "intellectually bankrupt" we are, all the time whipping up those straw-man arguments and refusing to engage in real, substantive, face-to-face debate.
The bankruptcy, Meacham, is in the arguments of people who hide from those they criticize.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Jon Meacham, Biblical Scholar?
December 9, 2008 - 09:26 ET by allanfFor generatiosn the best and brightest Jewish students studied the Talmud. I doubt you will find a Talmudic scholar who would argue that Nashim permits gay marriages under Jewish Law.
The idea that you can change a religious doctrine if you don't like it runs counter to the concept of "faith"
That does not mean the State cannot recognize such unions under civil law. But to try to aruge on religous grounds is sophistry.
Biblical Scholarship
December 9, 2008 - 11:07 ET by bradbenj5952Good Point Allanf,
They're demonstrating the same approach to biblical scholarship as king Jehoiakim when he sent his lackey Jehudi to fetch the Word of God from Jeremiah in chapter 36:23, "And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth." If you don't like what God said, just take a penknife and cut out those parts with which you disagree. And what was God's answer to this act? "Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." 36:27 & 28
This is a lesson for all would-be/wanna-be "biblical scholars". You can't change the Book. Preservation of the Word is the exclusive domain of God. Your only choice is to believe or not believe.
This is an old saw the model being established long ago in the garden of Eden when the serpent said to the woman, "Yea hath God said".
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Demographics?
December 9, 2008 - 09:19 ET by KarinWhat demographics? It's not like they reproduce like Hispanic people. What is he talking about? Why is everything so gayed up these days?
Let the market decide...
December 9, 2008 - 09:22 ET by Ole_SargeI for one, WILL NOT buy Newsweek or Newsweek products.
Don't like what they do, fill out the subscription cards and then CANCEL your subscription. When the first one comes with the bill.
It's been done with smaller mags before with some results, nothing like impacting the bottom line.
Religious Right
December 9, 2008 - 09:36 ET by SeashellI get kind of tired hearing about "religious conservatives" "the religious right" and so forth. Are people trying to infer that people on the left are not religious? Bill and Hillary went to church (at least during his presidency) and I don't remember them being labeled the "religious left"?
It's as if, if you go to church and you are a republican, you are part of an evil, untolerant group that is a toxin on all the rest of society, especially in the South. I get sick of being labeled as some wacked out crazy person because I believe in God and am a republican.
Re: Religious left
December 9, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Tim GrahamI have no problem with the term "religious right" if it is balanced by a "religious left," or more commonly the "secular left." But these are terms that are rarely used. Religious conservatives can be accurately described. But secular liberals present themselves without any adjectives or labels, as if they are the objective arbiters of truth.
Exactly! I have no
December 9, 2008 - 11:32 ET by SeashellExactly! I have no problem with the term "religious right" if used fairly and as you say, balanced on the left side. It just doesn't happen. The media always uses the term "religious right" in a denigrating and belittling manner.
Newsflash!
December 9, 2008 - 09:40 ET by moderncommentaries83History and demographics favor those who actually, you know, contribute to history and demographics. Conservatives - and especially religious conservatives - have more children than liberals or same-sex couples.
Additionally, you don't have "inclusion" when you intentionally attempt to eliminate from society a segment of people with whom you disagree! Liberals always attempt to exclude conservative religious from every aspect of life. Making them as intolerant (and moreso) than they claim we are.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
history favors morality -
December 9, 2008 - 18:44 ET by TruthMongerhistory favors morality - nuff said
Dominate education now
Conservatives Need to Take a Stand
December 9, 2008 - 09:43 ET by BW222Since Newsweak has turned so far left, this is a good time to suggest to your doctors or dentists that they drop it or add a conservative magazine for balance.
I still make it a practice to cover US Weekly when I visit the grocery store. I'll never forgive that magazine for the smear article on Sarah Palin.
BW222
I am so tired of having the
December 9, 2008 - 09:49 ET by KevpotI am so tired of having the Left try to cram this garbage down my throat. Here is the truth about homosexuality: there are only 2 possible explanations, people are either born gay or it is an acquired lifestyle. If it is the latter, then it is a matter of personal choice and I see no reason why I should be forced to support another persons lifestyle choices. If they are born gay, then that means something went wrong during fetal development and they are deformed. Call it bad wiring or whatever but it is abnormal. Just as a baby is sometimes born with 3 arms. It doesnt mean we love the three armed baby any less, but don't try and force me to say its 'normal'.
What about the conservatives who don't go about quoting Bible?
December 9, 2008 - 09:50 ET by desertdwellerThe attempt to pigeon all "conservatives" as "religious conservatives" is perhaps the most insidious attempt at dividing conservatives.
Why all the "conservative" modifiers? "Social"? "Religious"? "Constitutional"? ...
Because it's convenient
December 9, 2008 - 10:16 ET by moderncommentaries83They pigeonhole conservatives because it's convenient. Whether social, religious, fiscal, or constitutional - conservatives are always bad and evil and the left has to constantly warn the public against the Bible-thumping, albino assassin monks hiding under the bed, lest we become a theocracy! by putting us all in the same category.
Conservativism has a much broader spectrum of people - gay, straight, atheist, religious, black, white, etc. etc. - than liberalism. And, while there isn't 100% agreement on everything, there is much greater tolerance on the conservative side of the fence. Dissenting liberals are either cast out of the party (see: Joe Lieberman) or relegated to second-class status with little hope for advancement (see: any pro-life Democrat).
Of course, some people are starting to get it (http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/2008/11/19/which-side-is-intrusive/):
So there is hope.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Nice find
December 10, 2008 - 00:45 ET by desertdwellerThe "doublespeak liberals" who somehow feel their "internal social guilt" is the fault of some [insert-contrived-modifier-here] conservative responds to their guilt by arguing to shut down the liberties of everyone else.
Doublespeak Liberals live in a self indulgent short attention span world of sound bites and half second video edits.
And I just realized that sentence is too long for a Doublespeak Liberal to read. Tough hooey.
Time for conservatives of all ilks to work together before this country tanks.
Sigh. Where does one start? Nonsense thru and thru.
December 9, 2008 - 09:57 ET by lotrSo, closing my eyes and point to the computer monitor, I find:
"History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward.)"
A loaded statement dripping with liberal platitudes. So, a traditionally minded person (never mind all persons in all societies through all millenia up until the "enlightened 1990s C.E. (Clintonian Era)") is "exclusive" by affirming that marriage means "a male-female public commitment which serves as the basis of the fundamental unit of family, society and posterity." Oh, and who can miss the undertone of: "The writing's on the wall," "STFU," and "resistance is futile!"
Look, one is free to commit either to a monogamous relationship with one of the opposite sex or not. There are lots of folks out there who don't want that -- people who want to remain single, who don't want to share their wealth, who want to remain "independent," who want to "sow their wild oats," etc. That's their perogative, but sorry, they can't then claim marital status.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
It is not about Demographics or quoting the Bible!
December 9, 2008 - 10:08 ET by legacyrepublicanIt is not about Demographics ( how many liberal or conservative voters ) or "Quoting the Bible."
It is about sexualizing all personal relationships.
For the average hetrosexual, like myself, same sex relationships are friendships not rooted in sexual desire. This is not to say that all relationships with the opposite sex are rooted in sexual desire either.
But, my same sex friendships don't have a stigma of possible sexual pursuit. At least, none that I am aware of, thank God.
Now, these people who are advocating same sex marriage are goal setting. They are saying that only by legitimizing the pursuit and the possibility of any relationship you have as a long term sexual one will you avoid being a bigot.
Basically, they have sex on the brain. They have mistaken lust and passion for love.
They have abandoned the foundations of love, sacrifice, self-discipline, kindness, compassion, and true intimacy by replacing them with a hateful, depraved, passionately mean-spirited and intolerant view of people around them who do not see things their way.
Yeah... how come?
December 9, 2008 - 10:16 ET by AJBThe only same-sex couples they ever portray in the media are as vanilla as they get... they could be Sears Catalogue models. They NEVER EVER NEVER show the mainstream ones, like those who attend events like the Folsom Street Fair. Ever see THOSE pictures? An event, attended by tens of thousands and NOT ONE MSM covers it because if they did, their cause would be dead in a nanosecond.
AJB
December 9, 2008 - 10:30 ET by SeashellI did see some of those pictures and really wish I hadn't. I had no idea something like that could go on in this country. Aren't we supposed to have decency laws? I am ashamed of Schwarzenegger for allowing this to happen in his state and in our country.
What's worse
December 9, 2008 - 10:45 ET by moderncommentaries83Did you see the pictures of the toddler girls dressed in leather and dog collars at Folsom? Yeah - if that wasn't abuse, I don't know what is.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/01/miller-lite-approved-toddlers-at-the-folsom-street-fair/
I spank my son (which I don't do) and I could go to jail in California. I dress my two-year-old like a porn star, and I'm a fabulous parent!
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
EXACTLY!
December 9, 2008 - 10:54 ET by AJBSpot-on, both of you. Yet, they're portrayed as normal as Ozzie and Harriet. I still contend who you get in bed with is your CHOICE!
Agreed
December 9, 2008 - 11:26 ET by legacyrepublicanYes, they hide their sexual lust and desire to pursue others. They don't want it "outed."
Like I said, they have sex on the brain.
Is it any wonder Bernie Ward was so popular on KGO radio.
I used to listen to Bernie on Sunday mornings doing 'God Talk,' ironically, on my way to church. I would fuss and fume with him wondering what bible he was reading. He is one of the reasons I left CA in the mid-ninties.
Sexual desire should have one primary goal, the increasing of the species and bonding the parents into a solid unit that raises the offspring of that sexual desire. That should be its 'normative' function.
If I am abusive with a gun ( which I don't have ), I go to jail.
It used to be that if I was abusive with my sexual organ ( brain included ), I would go to jail too. But, today, that line is more and more distorted till it all doesn't matter. Just do as you please as long as you are consenting.
Well put [legacyrepublican]
December 9, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Jonah JohansenIt is not about Demographics or quoting the Bible!
December 9, 2008 - 10:08 ET by legacyrepublican
Very insightful post, I added it to my collection.
Thanks,
News-what?
December 9, 2008 - 10:09 ET by AJBI canceled YEARS ago. All they are is a rehash of the NYTimes and WHO in their right minds reads that anymore? All the News that's Fit to Invent is their new masthead..
Well, Mr. Meacham... let's include ALL sorts of choice as 'biblically correct'. I want to marry my 13 year old neighbor, Bobby. And my sheep, Martha. Any my Aunt Minnie, who's been dead for 12 years. PLEASE tell me how you can include me!! My choice of bed partners is just as 'correct' as theirs, so I expect your unmitigated support too!!
Newsweak: ivory tower arrogance
December 9, 2008 - 10:25 ET by Mary Louise TurnerNewsweak, as with a lot of the elite, inside the Beltway, Baby Boomer MSM, seems to be proud of ridiculing evangelicals, conservative Catholics and others who don't worship at the altar of "me, me, me". Worse still, the MSM displays outrageous arrogance and ignorance when it comes to Christianity. No wonder their readership and ad revenues are going into the toilet.
Mr. Graham:
December 9, 2008 - 10:42 ET by TEMr. Graham:
Excellent post.
Don't buy the magazine or click links to it
December 9, 2008 - 10:50 ET by PamDon't buy the magazine or click links to it. Don't react to it...Newsweek needs the reaction, therefore don't give it to them...They have lost significant market share as it is..the less people do business with them, by buying the magazine or visiting their website, the quicker they will crumble...
Exactly. I won't even
December 9, 2008 - 13:07 ET by lotrExactly. I won't even touch it in a doctor's office.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Meacham, open your eyes
December 9, 2008 - 10:55 ET by ConservativeRexMeacham, open your eyes dude.
We've already brought it on!
That's why you've lost almost all of your subscriptions. And your rag is bleeding to death.
But by all means keep digging. Pretty soon it'll all cave in on you then you can cry about censorship. And those evil Conservatives.
I agree with Mr. Meacham
December 9, 2008 - 10:59 ET by HockeyKidabout inclusion winning out over exclusion. But I don't believe he realizes what he's saying. The statement "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", the most inclusive statement imaginable, will win out in the end. But I'll betcha anything Mr. Meacham doesn't agree.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Henceforth Newsweek shall
December 9, 2008 - 11:06 ET by HockeyKidHenceforth Newsweek shall be known as "Hellspeaks".
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I believe that all of these
December 9, 2008 - 11:13 ET by colfaxI believe that all of these liberal hack mags and papers are in big trouble. They are going down in the dust the same reason conservative radio kills liberal radio, because half the democratic base could give a crap about fixing a problem and hearing solutions,they are just looking for a hand out.These folks are'nt reading newsweek or listening to talk radio on the job,if Acorn has to pay you to register I doubt you have a subscription to the Times.
I believe that all of
December 9, 2008 - 11:30 ET by moderncommentaries83Remember that US Weekly ran a clearly biased and negative article about Sarah Palin and their subscription cancellations shot through the roof - to the point where they were begging customers not to cancel.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/09/us-weekly-now-offering-five-free-issues-to-outraged-readers/
They don't get it. They don't understand the free market, and that when you regularly and repeatedly insult a segment of society (conservative religious), they're going to take their business elsewhere and you're going to suffer.
Of course, it will be the fault of "right wing talk radio" and those damned Christians that their business fails...
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
What?!?
December 9, 2008 - 14:14 ET by orlifreak7History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion. Do tell me, Mr. Meachem, which side you are on. I hear you say that you favor inclusion, but I wonder how much you care to include Christians or, as you like to call it, "the religious right." Inclusion isn't really inclusive. It's a code word to make people accept the liberal agenda that they won't stop shoving down people's throats
He's got a point
December 9, 2008 - 14:17 ET by AshleeLike it or not, and as he said, whether you are against, for, or somewhere in the middle regarding support of 100% equal homosexual rights, the fact remains that he's correct by stating its only a matter of time.
Now, I won't speak in place of God or Christ as it is just simply a foolish thing for anyone to do and I'm sure many will cite that 'following the scripture is not speaking for, merely listening and abiding.'
Again, as he states, there are *maaaaaaaany* examples of 'law' or 'religious, Christian mores' in which are laid out plainly and clearly in the bible as equally damning acts. My friend who once posted here in the past had long previously brought up the shellfish issue (which does bring to light the disconnect between modern medicine and disease and sickness) but I find the more relevent case to be the issue of social caste systems and grooming practices.
In the bible it is deemed 'wrong' for a man to be robed as a woman would, or vice versa. However, I have seen plenty of 'good Christian women' who will easily hand out condemnation of homosexuals, yet enjoy the comfort of a nice, loose pair of jeans on the weekend. So are they also going to hell?
What about the new movement in the youth, especially in the musical scene of the Christian youth, where 'tight fitting' clothing and even some boys are wearing women's jeans as a fashion statement are getting on stage and singing of their faith and love of God. Are they, also, going to hell?
If the answer you provide is 'no,' congratulations, you're on the rational bus with the rest of us. However, it creates a conundrum. Now, I am *not* stating that because the example given above creates a pseudo sense of biblical hypocrisy, that it somehow validates homosexuality of the lifestyle of any homosexual. The fact remains that sodomy is MUCH more likely to transmit disease than heterosexual sex. There is also the fact that while MANY homosexuals live normal, everyday lives as moral, upstanding people, that the masses and media is constantly vaulting the 'club culture' of the homosexual sub culture as its posterchild.
Now... What I *am* saying is this...
Right or wrong, one *cannot* argue that because an ascribed set of rules are broken, that the act is damnable; while elsewhere, the same people holding judgement, conveniently ignore the existence of other rules on that *same* list that they deem 'unnecessary.'
So, where am I going with this?
Simple, you see, what we as a Christian Religion *are* doing is just that. We recieve the Bible, assumingly by God's word and divine intervention to provide laws to live by while on this Earth. As time passes, people progress. Again, where shellfish was once considered blasphemous to be consumed, as well as various other meats, as time prods on, we find that people falling ill after consumption of said foods are not doing so due to God's intervention, but rather, poor food preperation, lackluster understanding of the human health system as a whole (ie modern medicine,) and inability to provide care to combat the illness caused by the ill prepared foods.
As time has gone on in the past two centuries, although the bible quite clearly declares that the woman is the submissive part within any unit and humanity itself, thanks to wonderful progression in women's rights and good ol' common sense and humanitarian spirit, we have overcome such assumptions and today, now live in a much more equal playing field for society.
The main point here is, with all that previous info in mind, its foolish to assume that homosexual rights within the religious realm and public sector will never be acceptable is insanely foolish in my opinion. (and NO the Church SHOULDN'T have any right in public governance unless they are willing to allow Government intervention in THEIR arena.)
Yes, Prop 8 did pass, however, many young voters are not only apathetic, but caught up in their own lives as many if not all of us are or were in our younger years. I cant tell you, even as a very politically active person, how many times a chance to vote and voice my opinion on an issue has passed and I simply flat out missed it. However, just watch and see, in time the issue will be brought back to the front and *this time* they will make sure the side of human rights prevails. I know it sounds foolish, but when the masses believe in a sure thing, they are more apt to assume the cause is fine without their help. They didnt plan on Prop 8 passing, even though in all honesty it was nowhere NEAR the 'landslide' victory the anti-gay movement in America would love to claim. They simply didn't think it could pass. It did. I can assure you they will be ready next time and not be so foolish.
In closing though, its clear that the youth, as it has almost always been, is a bit more open to dialog and personal growth through conversation than someone who has been hardened and conditioned by life and has cemented their world views and most of what they consider 'right' and 'wrong.' Now, I know, many are going to claim that 'progressive growth' is due to 'indoctrination of the left.' I'll admit, the left can be evil as all get out and I truely question their motivation on the side of homosexual rights. However, this isnt about the left and right. This isn't about politics. Nor is it about something that is taking money from you or directly affecting you. Its about a personal decision between two human adults.
I guess we'll find out sooner or later how this story ends, but I can assure you, most of us here WILL see complete equal homosexual rights within our lifetime and I am betting we'll see more positive than negative because of such.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Let's focus on something, Ashlee.
December 9, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Mike BrattonYou said that the general deviancy of homosexuality (and its permutations, no doubt) boils down to being "a personal decision between two human adults."
Off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of things that would qualify as "a personal decision between two human adults" of which you might (or might not) disapprove.
Does so-called "assisted suicide" work for you?
How about the marriage of adult siblings?
And are there deviancies you don't approve of? What happens when "two human adults" join forces to indulge themselves in that deviancy? Is that all right?
Oh, and one other thing: This business of comparing homosexuals to legitimate ethnic minority groups is absolute nonsense. Homosexuals don't want "equal" rights, they want "special" rights over and above the majority of the population.
There will be no positives from the move you forsee--just a further deterioration and balkanization of the American ideal.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
This nimrod
December 9, 2008 - 14:43 ET by RowaneThis Nimrod needs to realize that almost ALL of the advances in human society can be laid at the feet of the Religious Right and Judeo/Christian morality itself.
Despite all the archaeological evidence proving the TRUTH (un-needed by those of us with Faith) the foolish "liberal progressives" will continue to profess the polar opposite, that there is no proof of anything in the Bible. They will also continue to flaunt their hatred of anything and anyone that shows a smattering of religion.
→ Rowane
December 9, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Cool ArrowIt's not often noted that there have been absolutely no technological advances from the Arab world since they embraced allah as their god.
Their half-brothers, the Jews, on the other hand, have contributed more than their share of brilliance.
Either Yehweh really does exist and loves His chosen people, Or allah exists and hates his people.
I'm sure other variations could exist.
Newsweek to be Sold....
December 9, 2008 - 15:49 ET by BiasedGirlNext Month's headline....after all 50 remaining readers cancel their subscriptions....
Oh and I almost forgot...Imagine him saying exactly the same thing, except he's attack the Quran and Muslims for their faith in it's value...It would not be safe for him to leave his house...
http://www.withbias.net
To listen to the radio
December 9, 2008 - 16:15 ET by boarTo listen to the radio program that is cited by M. Hemmingway go to www.issuesetc.org Great radio show!
"As a liberal
December 9, 2008 - 18:46 ET by misterbee241"As a liberal Episcopalian..."
There's the problem right there. I doubt he knows what he believes.
The same thing could be said for liberal baptists, fill-in-the-blank, etc.
Meacham thinks this debate
December 10, 2008 - 09:05 ET by NL207Meacham thinks this debate is going to take place on friendly ground, media where either he or like minded people control the editorial policy.
Come on over HERE to NB and show us how wrong we and the Religious Conservatives are on this issue. Better, keep on talking and watch the circulation of your magazine continue to plummet.
Pot meet Kettle
December 10, 2008 - 11:17 ET by AshleeI know that the title line seems a tad, well, snarky, but I'm simply making the valid point that your statement NL, well, is just as bad as the libs who won't 'budge' or 'listen' either.
Now, that said, I am 110% sure Conservatives and Republicans, as a whole, are much better with, and more successful in governing. Aside from a bit of a control issue *some* Conservatives seem to have, I am all for voting straight republican every single election, be it national or local.
However, what we see here is an impasse where neither side will budge and we must either compromise, and yes I believe the left needs to compromise, I'm not advocating that we just 'do what they say. What you have said, however, is that he will only take this debate to 'friendly crowds' or 'those open to influence.' This is *not* a foolish thing to do when you wish to show people the way *you* view things.
It was I think the third or fourth big rule in persuasive writing that it is foolish to speak to an audience incapable of persuasion. For example, did McCain and Palin spend most of their resources and time in blue state strongholds? Of course not. Why would they spend time and resources attemtping to court those who had already converted to the Church of "Obama's going to fix everything and plant a nation of money trees!"
Same as why many liberals and moderates who differ in opinion to conservatives on issues will steer clear of speaking to them, as it will most likely lead to a stalemate debate which ends with both sides thumbing their noses at the other while the bad taste left in their mouths due to the useless 'debate' has only further polarized them further into their respective partisan political corners.
I admit, conservatives have always had the gusto moreso than liberals in bringing the debate to a less than receptive audience, however, more than I'd like to see, often times there is a motive for such acts relating to wanting to 'prove the other side wrong, regardless of any collateral damage or distortion.'
It amazes me how people on both sides, and even in the center, often times enter politics and debate issues merely for the bragging rights of 'I'm right, you're wrong.' Frankly, I just want the facts and the best answer, *not* the 'best answer that still fits into a certain political ideology.'
As for 'control of the policy,' let's not be foolish, BOTH sides prefer to talk amongst their own; humanity *is* more inclined to inclusion, rather, people would rather be told they are right, agree with them, and pat them on the head and say 'good boy/girl' than be faced with opposition to any point.
Hence, if *anyone*, myself included, would fault or judge the author of this article for speaking to a potentially receptive audience, rather than going gung ho into a debate with *known* staunch opposition to his initial point, then that person is a blatant hypocrite. Again, not saying anyone here is afraid of debate, but to claim someone is, merely because they decided to write a translucently persuasive piece over an open invite to debate, afraid of debate itself or a coward, well, that's flat out foolish and I *know* everyone here knows better.
I know more than anyone its hard not to react in a knee-jerk way to snooty liberals, but fighting dirty like them will neither flatter our side nor will it win the fight.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
What's wrong with an invitation?
December 10, 2008 - 12:26 ET by Mike BrattonPersonally, it would be great to see Meacham actually attempt to defend his point of view here, "in person."
And I must ask--why the equivocation? Liberalism, Ashlee, is a subjective, emotion-based worldview that shifts with popularity, hormones, and moods. Conservatism is an objective appeal to basic standards. Likewise, Christianity is an objective response to the ultimate standard, God and His Word.
Meacham is wrong, and cannot defend his point of view. Reasonably approached, there's always the possibility that he might realize the error of his ways.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
There's nothing wrong for
December 10, 2008 - 12:35 ET by AshleeThere's nothing wrong for an invitation but what you are proposing is an invitation to a lecture from you on why he is wrong. He claims to want dialog. I can't say I 110% believe that, again, going back to the point that NO person desires to deal with opposition when trying to persuade. That being said, what you claimed he is doing, basically preaching to those whom are in line with his views and condemning all other, dissenting opinions; well, that's basically what you just laid out.
I'm not saying I know you are incorrect, I am just saying that you speak in such absolute platitudes that it comes off a tad strange that you use said platitudes to denounce someone for using their own.
You disagree with him, he disagrees with you. The only 'point' in getting him here would be so you and others could all hurl your opinions at him, finding strength in numbers seeing as he would certainly be of the minority view on this here at NB.
I guess perhaps I'm a bit too 'live and let live' to understand this *need* to 'show those the way.
None of us know the true way, we all have our hopes of a map, but I'm of the firm belief a human cannot know until they face God themselves. Again, all in my own humble opinion.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
No, you've missed the point.
December 10, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Mike BrattonMeacham is the one who wants to lecture conservatives in general, and those of us who are Christians in particular.
Let him do it someplace like here, or not at all. Pronouncements from the protected spire at Newsfrail are just examples of rock-tossing from Meacham.
And before you ask--yes, I've had more than a few opportunities to talk with homosexual advocates. In person. Sometimes, they actually listen, and that makes the effort worthwhile.
Let me correct you about something, while I'm thinking about it: As a Christian, I'm not dealing in personal opinion. As I've mentioned more than a few times here lately, my personal opinion sometimes is at odds with what God has to say in the Bible with regard to a given subject. Ten times out of ten--as any other believer would--I forsake my own opinion for God's direction.
The notion that we "need to show those the way" who aren't Christians is an accurate one, Ashlee. If non-Christians continue to believe the way they currently believe, when they "face God themselves" it will be too late to ask for a pass into Heaven.
Your opinion, humble though it may be, is deadly. We share Christ as we have the opportunity because we don't want people to die without Him, and spend a Christless eternity tormenting themselves for not accepting Him. Thus, our "need."
And to be blunt, we don't speak in platitudes, and you honestly can't demonstrate where I have. The banalities, rather, are the property of those who seek to relegate the Bible to the discount bargain bin.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
I agree with all of that
December 10, 2008 - 14:42 ET by AshleeI agree with all of that except, perhaps, your assumption that you are the one who is completely correct in your view (again not stating you *aren't,* just that I don't see how anyone can be sure, outside of faith itself, and even then, it can be argued *for,* but not presented as quantative 'proof.' Afterall, if faith could be proven, the word itself would lose meaning.
As for my own opinion, yes, I am a Christian and I do believe homosexuality and the Christian religion can be reconciled. God spoke out against homosexuality because in the era in which it was judged via the bible, it, and sex in general, was comitted purely for pleasure. It was quite a sin to God for man to be sewing their oats indescriminately because to do so spread disease, unwanted, and therefore uncared for, children, and destroyed the concept of the family unit in which we groom our next generation to hopefully be stronger, wiser, kinder, and stronger in character than the previous generations. In those times, and even a few in these times, homosexuality was purely about sex. I can't say ALL of it was, but I am pretty darn sure, when looked at the language used and the tone, that God was speaking out against the destruction of family, spread of disease, and loss of sanctity of intimacy between two souls with genuine, pure love for one another. Not necessarily because 'two guys or two girls kissing is icky and wrong.'
However, you might ask, how could one reconcile Christianity and homosexuality when its *so* clearly defined as a sin?
Is it though?! Obviously God has spoken out against it. However, he cites the after product of the homosexual engagements of that time, as I stated above. He spoke out against the effects of the act as a reason to be against the act itself. That being said, sure, there are a small minority of homosexuals that ARE causing those problems and are only out for 'it feels good' as a motivation factor in life decisions. However, while this small minority seems to be much larger since the sensationalist media won't draw viewers by documenting normal, everyday people who are just like the rest of us, only homosexual, they opt to ignore the majority of homosexuals who ARE in that category, and instead, shine the limelight on the 5% who are just flat out attention whores and most likely were so before ever 'coming out.'
In closing I guess I'm trying to say I think the answer lies between your view and this guy over at newsweek. I know for a fact that two homosexuals can feel real love. I've seen it. I've watched a good friend of mine glow just the same as any blushing bride or proud husband does when they share the news that the other said 'yes.' I have seen my mother sell houses to gay couples, with children who were straight yet loved their fathers, and these men not only were some of the most upstanding people personally, hard workers too, but they also believed strongly in the family unit and raising their children the same way the American Nuclear family has been for decades.
So...
How can I reconcile it? Christianity and homosexuality?
Because God spoke out at those who lived in lust. At the time, many many were engaging in homosexual behavior. Because of the adverse effect on humanity, he condemned the act itself. Yet, in today's modern world I know of plenty gay Christians who are much more strong and faithful in Christ than those who attend church weekly and are heterosexuals. Basically, the only difference between most homosexuals and ourselves is only regarding what falls between their legs (or doesn't :-!) of our spouses.
And as for the bible in the bargain bin, I doubt it, last I checked, its still the most circulated and highest selling written document for over 200+ years ;)
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Your opinion is not well-founded, Ashlee.
December 10, 2008 - 15:30 ET by Mike BrattonIn a much more subtle way, you're doing precisely what Meacham, Miller, and others do: You're attempting to use the Bible to validate something that the Bible emphatically repudiates.
There is no nuance in Scripture--either in the Old Testament or the New--with regard to sex. It is designed by God to be part of the "one flesh" uniting of a man and a woman in marriage.
Fornication? Sin.
Adultery? Sin.
Homosexuality and other sexual deviancies? Sin.
(And Ashlee, there is no such person as a "gay Christian," just as there is no such person as a "Christian pickpocket" or a "Christian abortionist." When one orients one's life around a belief or action that is contrary to Scripture, one has enshrined that belief or action in the prime place reserved only for God. As the saying goes, either Jesus Christ is Lord of all, or He is not Lord at all.)
Watch what happens when we take something you wrote and substitute something else the Bible identifies as sinful:
And to refresh your memory, the Bible doesn't actually refer to sexual deviancy as "icky and wrong." It uses somewhat stronger language--words like "abomination," "disgrace," "detestable," and "vile."
In attempting to find a "moderate" position, you've watered down the clear teaching of Scripture. Your moderation doesn't get very far past this, from Romans 1:
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed forever. Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ;
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...