I live for the day ...

All I want is just ONCE to say something that surprises my kids.  A little while ago, I found an empty box, so I held it out to my son and said, "Look!  Tucker a box for you, I wonder what it is?"

"Thanks Mom, that must be the ostrich washer I've been waiting for."

Saturday After Noon

It's been a slow day on the frozen hill where my house is perched precariously as though we may at amy moment slide down the ice.  The snowflakes were pretty but not so welcome as they were last month.  The closer we get to Spring the more anxious I am for Spring to get to me. 

Still Thinking ... (and quoting the Bible )

Sam wants me to quit dinking around with all this Civil Stuff and write how I think the law should read based on a Biblical worldview given that our system of government derives from the Judeo-Christian perspective.  It's a fair request.  Once before I wrote out a long blog comparing basic worldviews.  They can essentially be distilled into about five unique metaphysical systems.  (I included Postmodernism in my blog as the fifth knowing that it isn't a complete view but because I think it provides a powerful corrective to some of the assumptions of the others.)  If you have a half hour to kill you might want to check out that bit of dry writing here.  I hope that I haven't deceived anyone into thinking that I subscribe to anything other than Biblical Theism for my own metaphysical understanding. 

But here's what I think.  I believe I can argue that everything I've said all week is consistent with Biblical ethics.  Essentially, I've been saying that our Civil Law needs to be written in such a way as to provide the broadest possible protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or property).  This protection should apply whether the persons involved are living according to Biblical ethics or not.  This is not a new question and essentially it was answered by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, "You have heard it said that 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemies.'  But I say to you, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?  Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?  And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others?  Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."  (Matthew 5:43-48)

One of the convictions that I came to about my own practice of Christianity some years back was a very humbling realization for me.  It is that if I am to follow the example of Jesus, then my job on earth is to love far beyond the standards of my culture.  And I'm not talking about warm mushy feelings here.  That's something else that I think we get wrong.  We read the Bible with our 21st century eyes and understanding and we forget that we have a very different view of love than has been held for most of human history.  When you see the word love in the Bible, it's not a noun naming an emotion of pleasantly warm feelings toward another person, it's a verb.  And it means that you perform actions that are in the best interest of the other person.  The particular topic of discussion this week has been same-sex civil union.  The implications of civil union are that persons entering this state would be eligible for certain benefits such as health insurance and property protections.  Does anyone sincerely believe that withholding these benefits from people who's lifestyle doesn't conform to the Bibical ethic is in their best interest? 

It's a scary world out there folks.  And I'll be the first to admit that I have my own fears about entering it.  I've recently had a health issue that made me have serious concerns.  For the past 10 years, I've been covered by my husband's health insurance which is a particularly good plan by all standards.  I'm looking at the fact that once my legal status changes, I'll be dropped.  All of a sudden the doctor's visit that I now pay $25 out of pocket for, jumps to over $100.  I had a conversation with my Doctor about health insurance regulations and what not and he explained to me that he is required to charge non-insured patients that amount because of the way the health insurance contract reads.  If he is going to accept insurance money, he has to abide by their rules.  What's it like for someone who's sick, what's it like for someone who lives with and loves someone who's sick, knowing that they can't pay for medical care?  I've read the studies seen the reports indicating that same-sex couples have higher than average medical costs.  The usual interpretation has been that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently unhealthy.  But an equally valid interpretation of these data would be that of course their costs are higher, they don't have the same access to medical insurance that others have. 

Several people this week have made the point that the blessing of a nation is contingent upon the people of that nation conforming to God's law.  This is true.  But I'll point out that the Biblical standard for determining whether or not a nation conforms is to look at those who claim to be a part of the people of God.  Remember the verse in 2 Chronicles that we quote around the fourth of July?  "If MY people who are called by MY name will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."  Folks, and now I'm talking to my Christian brothers and sisters, we really need to get over worrying about the sin in our neighbor's life.  His sin is not our problem.  Frankly, God is not surprised when the lost sin and I'm not sure how we got to the point that we are surprised.  Have we all forgotten that there but for the grace of God go I?  The real issue if you want to talk about sin, is the sin of God's people.  And the promise of scripture is not that the land is healed or punished based on the sin of those outside the family of faith, it's the sin of God's own people that causes him to withhold the blessing.

Jesus gave out a standard in John 13:34-35 that we're familiar with, but I don't think we've grasped the full implication of.  "A new commandment I give to you that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.  By this all men will know you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."  To love as Jesus loved?  No, we don't even come close.  Imagine if the leprous approached us today, would we automatically extend our hand in healing?  Or would we first want to examine their lifestyle to see whether they bought beer last Saturday night?  Would we bandage their flesh?  Or would we ask them first about their relationship with God?  Would we touch them and offer comfort and Jesus did?  Or would we give them a lecture about sin and tell them to come back when they got their life in order?    Jesus healed lepers who didn't even bother to say "thanks," did he turn around and make them leprous again?

We don't encounter a leprous person every day ... so substitute that example with the kind of people we find repulsive.  How to you respond to the racist bigot in your office?  Do you find ways to reach out and bless that person?  How about the man who brags that he cheated on his income taxes?  Or the woman who's been with four different men in four different weeks?  Or the man who uses drugs or crawls into the bottle because he can't face his life?  What's your attitude toward these people?  What is your attitude toward your homosexual neighbor?  Because when I read my Bible, I find that the first thing God looks at and cares about isn't my neighbor, it's me.  Remember what Jesus said?  Before you worry about the splinter in your neighbor's eye, worry about the log in your own. 

I think that Christians should be at the front line of the debate saying YES lets make sure that anyone who is willing to enter into the legal contract - which is what we're talking about here - anyone who is willing to enter into the legal contract to share life responsibility with another person should be able to have access to the benefits that accrue to that commitment.  For years we heard that the main problem of homosexuality was promiscuity, well - folks here's an answer to that problem.  Shouldn't we embrace those who make that commitment to be monogamous?  If we believe what we've been saying, this is at the very least a step in the right direction.

If you've been a Christian who tries to talk with non-Christians, who tries to explain that God loves them so much that he died for them, you know that the barrier you have to overcome first isn't their belief or unbelief in God, it's the unloving/hateful attitude they perceive from Christians.  I wonder how that perception would change if we started looking for ways to bless the people we consider our enemies.  I wonder what it would do to our hearts to start seeing people as God sees them?  I wonder what it would be like to talk to non-believers in a world where the Christians were known as the people who loved unconditionally ...  

Legislating Morality

"...where your argument falters just a bit for me is in the assertion that you cannot legislate morality ..."

On Monday I weighed in with some remarks addressed to the current debate over same-sex Civil Unions.  My comments section is full of insightful additions to that topic.  A couple of the longer responses took issue with my statements about legislating morality.  I love it when someone points out areas where my words could be tightened up a bit and I've put some extra thought into this idea of legislating morality.  I'd like to acknowledge up front that by using a cliche, I muddied up the thought processes on this one ... My bad.  See a cliche may even be true, but because we've heard it so often before, it loses its meaning and we take it at less than face value.

In this case my intent was to say that morality is not caused, created, or brought about by making rules.  Say for example, I (hypothetically) believe that eating foods loaded with sugar and saturated fats is an unhealthy thing, I believe it so strongly that I consider these foods to be close to poison on the scale of bad things to eat.  Now lets say that I'm able to persuade the local legislators that my view is correct and they pass a law.  Suddenly, it's a criminal act for a chef to serve chocolate torte with butter cream.  (Oh, yeah, I feel very clever making a torte a tort ...)  Anyway, did passing that law instill in the heart of the chef an understanding that serving this food is an immoral act?  Probably not. 

I wrote that when we attempt to legislate morality that we are really saying that other people are not capable of making and accepting responsibility for their own moral choices.  Perhaps I should have said that we are admitting that we don't trust them to make the right moral choices, which would of course be those that we endorse.  Scott and Kevin pointed out that there is a connection between morality and legislation.  Kevin notes that all legislation derives from our sense of morality in one way or the other and Scott adds that when we legislate, we don't deprive anyone of the opportunity to own up to their choices, we just impose consequences (or offer benefit to reward) the choices they make.  Legislation thus attempts to influence our behavior with external reward and punishment.

And to be a bit of a Devil's Advocate against myself, I also recognize that the fact a law may be ineffective at preventing behavior we deem undesireable is not a valid argument against inacting the law.  All societies have included some understanding of which actions constitute murder and have provided for penalties against muderers.  So far as I'm aware none of these laws have eliminated murder, should we repeal the laws?  By, no means.  See another aspect of law is that it says something not about who we are but about who we want to be.  We want to be a people that affirm life, so our laws punish murder even though we know that the punishment will not eliminate the possibility of murder occuring.

So what do you think?  Should we be in the business of writing legislation in the hope of guiding, controlling, or influencing people to make moral choices? 

That's a Cancer

It's always interesting to experience in person something that you've heard other people talk about and never really believed would happen to you.

Last Friday I had an appointment with my Doctor to have him take a look at a small spot on my right shoulder blade.  He looked at it and said, "That's a cancer and it needs to come out right now so we can biospy it."  There in his office in less time than it took me to find the place to hang my clothes, I was lying on his table and he was slicing my skin.  The tumor was encapsulated, which he said was a good sign, and he removed it all.  It was deeper than I would have expected.  On the surface of my skin it was a small red spot about the size of a pencil eraser tip.  When it came out it was about two inches long and looked like something off one of those sci-fi shows where the alien parasite invades ... I have eight stitches.  And they are located right where my bra strap would go...  So, I'm not going out much this week. 

I haven't yet received the result of the biopsy, but I'm not really worried about it.  I think this was a minor deal and I'm just glad that if it had to be done it was done quickly so I can put it out of my mind.  But it has made me think.  Think of how much for granted I take my health, my body, my next breath.   I think of myself as being much more about my mind than my body ... that the real me is the me that explores ideas and grows in understanding.  But it only takes hearing those three words to shock me back to the reality that I'm not separate from my body. 

Leonard Cohen wrote a song with a line that's been running through my mind ... there's a voice that sounds like God to me, declaring that your body's really really really you ...

Defense of Marriage?

One of the great pleasures of Xanga takes place off site.  I'm referring to the email correspondence between people who want to delve more deeply into a topic than the standard blog and comment allows for.  Several days ago, I was invited into a conversation that Lovingmy40s was having with someone else on the topic of same-sex marriage.  She was considering posting some of her remarks in a blog and wanted my input to make sure that she wasn't saying something she didn't intend about marriage and divorce.  Well, me being me, I had more to say than just a simple, it looks good to me ...

I'll invite you to right click the link below to visit her site, and then pop back here for my contribution to the conversation ....

Lovingmy40s

Faith began her remarks by saying that Civil Law should exist solely for the purpose of ensuring that one person's preferences do not impinge on another's inalienable rights.  The inalienable rights defined by the framer's of the Declaration of Independence include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  In early drafts of the document, the phrase was life, liberty and property.  The authors understood that every person has the inalienable right to make decisions and take actions which will create favorable circumstances for him or herself and believed that the right to seek and hold property was self-evidently necessary to that pursuit.  The phrase favorable circumstances was their definition of happiness.  We tend to think of happiness as an emotional state.  They saw it as a life circumstance.  It would be possible to feel sad even in happy circumstances, or to feel joy in unhappy circumstances.  The inalienable right to pursue happiness was not ever meant to suggest that we could or should attempt to create legislation that would address an emotional state.  So when we say that Civil Law exists for the purpose of ensuring that one person's preferences do not impinge on another's inalienable rights, the rights that the law is specifically protecting have more to do with life, liberty and property than with whether or not you are happy. 

Law in my opinion is best seen as a code of behavior, not a code of ethics.  Ethics are deeper than laws and codes which can never be broad enough to cover every possible ethical contingency.  Behavior on the other hand tends to be a bit easier to regulate, at least insofar as we are able to assign responsibility and prescribe appropriate actions.  Does it seem that I'm taking a LONG time to get back to the point of the discussion?  Okay, I'm headed toward marriage now.

You know that I'm in the process of ending my 15 year marriage.  It's been enlightening to me to see the legal ramifications and considerations.  I live in a "no fault" state.  This means that the law in my state is unconcerned with the ethics of my marriage.  If either of us had an affair, that information would be considered irrelevant and inadmissible in court.  Civil Law here is concerned with our property, our lives, our liberty.  In our divorce contract, the first section is devoted to division of property (it's the shortest) and the next two are about the responsibilities we will continue to share for the health and welfare of our children.

Frankly, I think this is precisely the purview of the law, to address and regulate contracts between people in such a way that property is protected and responsibility is defined.  If my husband or I have an ethical lapse between us, I want it to be exactly that - between us.  I want the option to forgive him or divorce him if I decide that the lapse has irretrievably disrupted our relationship, I don't want a court second guessing me.  It's not the state's business how my husband and I negotiate our personal relationship.  It is the state's business how we handle our property and our responsibilities.

Because the state has an interest in protecting the life, liberty and property of all the citizen's who make up the community, I am in favor of laws supporting Civil Marriage in same sex unions.  We forget that marriage is a legal contract.  Where there is broad access to forming a legal contract there is broad protection of the people who do so.  Another aspect of the law is that it is a reflection of how we see each other.  When we attempt to legislate morality, we are really saying that we don't believe that people are capable of making and accepting responsibility for their own choices. 

Faith mentioned that the source of objections to same-sex unions comes primarily from religious groups.  Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine derived from the Bible holds that homosexual behavior is sin.  The problem with asking the state to write laws that conform to Biblical standards and definitions is two-fold.  More than once through history, our understanding of the Bible has changed.  The Bible didn't change, but the way we viewed it's message has.  Just thinking through the different ways that the church has viewed women's roles over the years is an excellent caution against trying to turn the Bible into a civil authority.  Even on the subject of marriage, many of the Biblical texts were written in a time and culture that had a very different view of marriage than we hold today.  Polygamous arrangements were the norm and not only accepted there is advice for conducting oneself honorably in those relationships.  But I don't know of any religious leader today who is seriously calling for Civil Law to sanction polygamy simply because it appears to be acceptable in the Bible.  And secondly, we aren't a theocracy.  We are a Republic.  Using the Bible as the guide for my own personal behavior and ethics is my right and prerogative.  Asking everyone to do the same would be a violation their liberty of conscience.