Day of Silence countered by Day of Truth
- Mar 28, 2007 - 71
This April 18, thousands of students at high schools across the country will once again be demonstrating their support of homosexuality during the annual Day of Silence. The event, promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, asks students to show support for the gay lifestyle by wearing pro-gay T-shirts and by spending the day without speaking.
But what about the large number of students, both Christian and non-Christian, who don’t support a gay lifestyle?
Two such students at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Illinois, have asked permission to hold their own day of silence on the following day, which would allow them to express their opposing view that homosexuality is immoral and against God’s teachings.
While it would seem that these two students would have just as much right to express their opinions as their classmates who support gay life, their school does not agree and has rejected their request. As a result, the two students, Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll, filed a lawsuit on March 21 claiming their school is discriminating against their freedom of speech.
This isn’t the first time Zamecnik has faced this dilemma. In fact, she had attempted to express her views of homosexuality last year following the Day of Silence by wearing a T-shirt she made that read “Day of Silence: Straight Alliance” on one side and “Be Happy, Not Gay” on the other. By the middle of the day, however, she was ordered by the school dean to change her shirt or be sent home.
After seeing the school permit her classmates to wear pro-gay T-shirts the day before without being punished, Zamecnik refused to give in. When the dean called her mother to explain the problem, Mrs. Zamecnik also stood her ground on the issue. Together, the three decided to change the message on the back of the shirt to “Be Happy. Be Straight.” However, when the changes were made by a female faculty member, the dean went against the agreement and ordered her to mark out “Not Gay” without replacing it with anything. Following the changes, the back of the shirt simply read “Be Happy.”
As a result of the school’s action, Zamecnik’s attorney Nate Kellum, of the Alliance Defense Fund explained, “Heidi suffered unlawful discrimination, humiliation, and punishment at the hands of school personnel for simply expressing her sincerely held views.”
In her defense, he argued, “Students do not lose their constitutional right to free speech when they enter the schoolhouse. A school cannot allow speech that promotes one viewpoint while censoring the other side of the debate.”
Despite their school’s attempt to censor their views on homosexuality, Zamecnik and Nuxoll still plan to express their opinions on what is now called The Day of Truth. This event is scheduled for April 19, the day following The Day of Silence, and will provide students across the country a chance to offset the promotion of homosexuality by sharing their opposing views on the issue.
During this day, students are encouraged to wear Day of Truth T-shirts and distribute cards that read:
I am speaking the Truth to break the silence
Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint.
Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed.
By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.
For more details about The Day of Truth and how to get involved, visit www.dayoftruth.org.
Read more about the Zamecnik and Nuxoll lawsuit here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Faith, Apologetics, Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Persecution, Religious Liberty, Social Issues
71 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 8:15am, Don Embry wrote:
Do you think this is what Jesus would do? I believe He would show love in his actions...not trying to “one up” the competition. Loving the homosexual and showing them what life is WITH Jesus by how we respond to them is the only way to reach them for Christ. Wearing t t-shirt trying to change thier minds just won’t work. It only shows how judgemental we Christians can be. “Judge Not”...if we want to reach the world. Don’t forget that the Hloy Spirit is powerful and if we do our job, HE can do the rest!
2 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 8:38am, Jimelle Phillips wrote:
Although I agree with what Don Embry has wrote I also understand these young ladies point of view as well. We the christians are always told to change our point of views or be punished. It seems you make a public statment about anything from abortion to gun control to burning of our nations flag but you let a christian try to express their views about Jesus the bible or what is morally right or wrong and you get a law suit slapped upside your head or kicked out of school or you get people in the media and other places telling you (the christian) to shut up and sit down. Yes, the Holy Spirit is powerful and so is prayer but I also think if you let one group voice their views you have to let all views be heard. Its called freedom of speech. We need to pray more as christians for our nation and our leaders at all levels and maybe these situations would come up less often.
Thanks,
Jimelle Phillips
3 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 8:42am, Amy wrote:
I disagree with Don. I don’t think it is judging to speak the truth. The truth is the Bible teaches against homosexuality. Just because one is a Christian, doesn’t mean that one is a doormat. Being a Christian means standing up for what is right and being salt and light to the world. The T-shirt the students are going to wear on the 19th clearly states their purpose in a loving way, just as Christ would do. And yes, the Holy Spirit is powerful, but Christians are supposed to be vocal and spread the Word. If we as Christians are silent, then those who are not Christians are the only ones speaking. That’s a lot of what’s wrong with our world today. Christians stand silently back while people with no real direction in life, who have no relationship with Christ, try to impose their skewed perception of the way life should be on the world. The only clear direction one can have is to follow the Bible and use it as a blue-print for life.
4 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 9:04am, Brian wrote:
Jesus frequently confronted sin. He told the adulterous woman to “Go now and leave your life of sin.” A few verses after the famous “judge not” phrase, he called some people “dogs” and “pigs”. Then, he told us to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. The fruit of the sinful lifestyle; whether it is pedophelia, homosexuality, or adultery, is eternity apart from God while countless lives are terribly scarred through those lifestyles. We should not let homosexual groups run unchallanged, promoting this sinful lifestyle amongst children. I thank God for the boldness of Heidi and Alexander for being the salt and light of Matt. 5:13-14.
5 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 1:00pm, Max Batson wrote:
As a father of four school aged children I agree with Brian and Amy above. The scriptures are replete with examples of God’s people rightfully voicing the truth. Sometimes it is more important to tell the truth than to not be “confrontational” for fear of hurting someones feelings. In response to Don’s position and the Holy Spirit, God uses bold “preaching” and truth telling to influence people too. There is such a thing as righteous indignation and it certainly applies here. We are being asked to show solidarity with homosexuality on April 18. If we do not then we are somehow the bad guys. This is a country in which we still enjoy freedom of speech and thought. Lets exercise said right on April 19. I will be encouraging my two high school aged children to consider this.
6 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 12:02pm, steve wrote:
The way I see it is that the ‘day of silence’ is not promoting homosexuality it is simply a statement that it’s OK to be gay. It is a sign of love and respect for fellow human beings. The Christian student’s actions demonstrate a total lack of love and respect and should not be allowed.
The bible does say homosexuality is bad but the bible is a book of fiction written by ignorant men in unsophisticated times. To think it has any relevance in today’s world is ludicrous.
7 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 4:40pm, Rick Hudgins Jr. wrote:
Steve raises an excellent point by highlighting the differences in the messages between the Day of Truth and Day of Silence participants. “Be Straight” or “Don’t Be Gay” statements do, in fact, condemn the “sinner” and are the complete antithesis of the love that Jesus requires of His followers, gay and straight alike. I’m not given the exact quotes from the “pro-gay” t-shirts, but unless they carry messages such as “Be Gay” or “Don’t Be Straight,” than the logic of the Day of Truth doesn’t hold.
8 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 4:56pm, Rick Hudgins Jr. wrote:
Furthermore, as a Christian who happens to be gay, I wonder which “fruit” (pun definitely intended) is worse? My loving, consensual relationship with my partner or the fruits of a lifestyle of war, death, and destruction in the name of “democracy,” which has been endorsed by so-called Christians across this country (*ESPECIALLY Southern Baptists). I wonder if my sex life is more innately “sinful” than the fact that people are starving in the streets, children are uninsured or severely underinsured, people are dying from domestic violence; the list could go on indefinitely, I’m afraid.
9 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 6:34pm, Wayne Wiles wrote:
I was amazed at the comment made by Steve. Did Dr. Martin Luther King change American views and polictics believing a book of fiction by ignorant men in unsophisticated times was irrelevant to modern times? How did an irrelevant and fictious book give rise to child labor laws? How did an irrelevant book lead to the formation of hospitals? Am I to believe that the framers, writers, and signers of such things as the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights who accepted as truthful the writing of the Bible are without relevance for today? Frankly, I support the position of the students because for society to have any redemptive element requires redeemed people to be active in society, even when criticized, misunderstood, ridiculed, or personally rejected.
10 On Mar 30th, 2007, at 9:24pm, eric wrote:
Gee, Wayne, what history books have you been reading? You seem to have conveniently omitted minor details such as the Spanish Inquisition, white southern ‘Christian’ opposition to intergration, similar Biblical opposition to interracial marriage, .... The Bible condones slavery, rape, subjugation of women, genocide, and a host of similar primitive behaviors.
The framers of the Constitution were indeed wise men. If, in their wisdom, they NOT ONCE made ANY reference in that august document to God, Jesus, or Christianity, who are you to question their wisdom? You can’t have it both ways, Wayne.
Try actually reading the Constitution, rather than depending on others to tell you what yous should be thinking.
11 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 8:34am, steve wrote:
Wayne, do you really believe that Martin Luther King looking at the oppression around him needed to refer to the bible to see it was wrong? Or that an American Constitution wouldn’t exist if the bible didn’t? What a ludicrous suggestion.
If the bible is responsible for child labor laws why weren’t they enacted 2000 years ago? And what version of the bible did the ancient Egyptians use to operate their hospitals?
Wayne, I have to tell you that your belief in the bible is a delusion. Being a delusion, you may have difficulty in coming to terms with it - I know, I was deluded too. But if you seriously reflect on it and look at the facts you’ll eventually come to see reality.
12 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 1:07pm, Brian wrote:
For Eric, the US Constitution reads: “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven”. Also, the Declaration of Independence sites the “Creator”, “God”, and the “created”.
13 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 1:30pm, Brian wrote:
For Rick, one type of sin will not go unpunished compared to other types of sin. God repeatedly tells us to resist all sin until Christ returns. Resisting a sin for a while, and then making it a part of our lives is a sign of the absence of the Holy Spirit. One who claims to be a Christian may point to his good works, but atheists can display their good works equally as well; and they will not be saved. Living in a sinful lifestyle and proclaiming it to others, is not a fruit of the Spirit.
Out of love, we should not support the homosexual lifestyle. Accepting that lifestyle is escorting homosexuals to God’s wrath. We would do well to recognize that God does not condemn homosexuality in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Rather, He carefully defines the borders of human sexuality so that our joy may be complete. Love the sinner, not the sin.
14 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 1:33pm, Rick Hudgins wrote:
Are you people forgetting one of the main reasons that we left Europe to begin with?
-To escape religious persecution.
15 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 1:48pm, Brian wrote:
Also Eric, by no means does the Bible “condone a host of primitive behaviors”, unless you take certain verses out of context.
For instance, it should be noted that the Bible does not commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of slavery. In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic Law stipulated stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Lev. 25:40). In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America.
Slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Timothy 1:10).
16 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 3:04pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
It seems this thread got a bit off topic. I know if there had been a gay affirming day at my high school, it would have been great for my sense of self at that age. If students have different points of view they are welcome to not participate but by giving gay students a voice, it creates a much safer environment for them. It’s hard enough to be a teenager let alone a gay teen. I know, I was one. This kind of thing helps gay teens feel not so isolated and lets them know that they are not alone. It also helps gay kids have healthy perspectives on their sexuality. It’s not a threat to anyone’s religious liberty. Public schools are secular by design.
17 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 4:01pm, steve wrote:
Brian, at last! - a Christian who recognizes that the bible no longer has any relevance to the modern world. Of course the bible is written in the context of the ancient world. The problem for some Christians though (obviously not you Brian) is that they believe the bible is the inerrant word of god. So if it was OK by God to have slaves a while back why isn’t it OK now???
Your reference to 1 Timothy 10 is confusing. Which of the over 30 english versions of the inerrant word of god are you referring to? I’ve looked at a few and I can only find a couple of modern translations that refer to slave traders. I assume Abe Lincoln and co were using the King James Version but 1 Tim 10 in this version doesn’t mention slave traders at all. I’m confused please explain how and what biblical principles helped abolish slave trading.
18 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 8:29pm, eric wrote:
“by no means does the Bible “condone a host of primitive behaviors”, unless you take certain verses out of context”
Brian, why is your interpretation of the Bible the correct one, and mine is ‘taken out of context’? A bit presumptuous aren’t you? [Unless you are the ‘Brian’ described in the Monty Python movie, “The Life of Brian"]
“the Bible does not commend slavery;”
Leviticus 25: 44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
19 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 8:42pm, eric wrote:
“the US Constitution reads: “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven”.
That was the date; can’t put a thing past you! It was the legal dating terminology of the time. It has no more religious significance than the date on any document. Pretty lame attempt!!
“Also, the Declaration of Independence sites the “Creator”, “God”, and the “created”
Native Americans refer to ‘The Creator’, Is the Declaration acknowledging the indiginous faiths?
There are many ‘Gods’, from Apis to Zeus. There is no specific reference to any aspect of Christianity. Rather presumptious again, Brian, to claim ownership of that term.
20 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 9:01pm, eric wrote:
“Out of love, we should not support the homosexual lifestyle. Accepting that lifestyle is escorting homosexuals to God’s wrath.”
By extension, you should neither support nor accept those who choose a faith other than yours, since that is counter to the 1st Commandment! Does not worshipping Allah, Siva, Odin, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster invite similar wrath? When can we expect you to attempt to replace the 1st Amendment with the 1st Commandment?
Your God seems to have allowed mankind a free will; to accept or not. A bit presumptuous (again) of you to second-guess that, and attempt to exert your (not God’s) will.
Re-branding homophobia as ‘love’ is disingenuous!
21 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 9:13pm, steve wrote:
Also Brian, Leviticus 25:40 has nothing to do with slaves - what makes you say it does? It’s bad enough to quote from a book of fiction to try to make a point but to quote incorrectly is quite misleading. (Read Lev 25:39 for the correct context)
I can’t find anything in Leviticus about setting slaves free. In fact Lev 25:46 makes it quite clear that slaves are an owners property for life and can even be inherited by the owners children.
The above demonstrates that you and, I suspect, most other Christians don’t really understand what it is you believe in when you refer to the bible. I suspect if you did you would realise that you have been deluded.
22 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 8:29am, Brian wrote:
For Steve, The Greek word used in 1 Timothy is andrapodistes, Strong’s reference #405. “An enslaver”. This is getting way off topic.
The original topic was the right to equal free speech for both sides of the issue. One side believes the sin is an acceptable way of life, the other sees the ultimate death that it leads to. In America, one side should not be restricted from their right to free speech.
23 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 8:59am, Brian wrote:
Eric, slavery for 400 years was a consequence of idolatry for the Israelites (Genesis). Slavery was also one consequence for the surrounding idolaters. Nowhere does the Bible commend cruelty to the slaves as was evident by many in our country.
The Bible is clear about the consequences for any accepted lifestyle (alcoholic, pedophiliac, homosexual, adulterer, etc.) that is contrary to the dictates of God. That is in part, what the Day of Truth is pointing out.
24 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 9:09am, Brian wrote:
Eric, almost every state constitution in America has a strong reference to God. While President of America, Thomas Jefferson was the head of the Washington DC school district and required only 2 books to be in every school: the Bible and a hymnal. Free speech for Americans and these children does not restrict freedom of religious expression.
25 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 4:35pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
I find it very interesting that they elect to call it the “Day of Truth” as if the gay affirming day is a lie. Wouldn’t it be Christlike to call it “Day of Brotherly Love” when despite our differences we agree to put them aside for one day and focus on things outside of ourselves instead of this constant battle for one upmanship. We are called to love our enemy, do good for those who hurt us, put on humility, meekness, to live as the servant. The church seems to be losing its way by this and other political distractions. When the Baptists make gay civil liberty issues so central to policy and focus, they are not focusing on Jesus. The joy of Jesus is eternal life. Why is the church becoming so distracted by these ephemeral issues? It’s not love when you seek to control your brother, it’s fear.
26 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 5:04pm, Brian wrote:
Only for clarification, this should be my last comment on biblical slavery.
There was no protection for the slaves of the Southern US. Exodus 21:20,23-26 “eye for an eye” if the slave is harmed, or they are to be freed. Whether foreign or Hebrew, the slaves had a day of rest each week, Exodus 20:10, Deut 5:14. They were to be involved in God’s worship, Deut 12:12,18. If a slave ran due to harshness, they had personhood and were protected, Deut 23:15-16. Their personhood was further demonstrated in Job 31:13-15. Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:5-9 gave principles as if living for Christ. Christ gives freedom to slaves in Coloss. 3:11, Gal. 3:28.
Sin is enslavement. Whether wearing a t-shirt or a respectful exchange of ideas, discussion of sin and its consequences can set you free.
27 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 7:45pm, eric wrote:
Brian: Re: your defense of slavery:
So enslaving others is just peachy, as long as they are non-believers, and thus deserve it? Lovely! Slavery is fine, as long as cruelty isn’t involved? Slavery IS cruelty! Nowhere did I cite otherwise. You’re shuckin’ and jivin’, Brian. Not willing to stand foursquare behind quotes from the very book [Leviticus] that you use to deny the rights and humanity of others? [but I forget; YOUR verses are seminal; mine are ‘taken out of context]
“That is in part, what the Day of Truth is pointing out.”
What’s the other part? Your supremacy? Your superiority? You belong, and THEY don’t? Please! Tell us what the ‘other part’ is! Arrogation of the term ‘truth’ is as presumptuous as laying claim to the term ‘God’, or your attempt to claim the Constitution to be a Christian document, based on the date.
28 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 7:57pm, eric wrote:
“This is getting way off topic.”
It’s called ‘thread drift’; it’s a natural phenomenon common in conversations wherein the participants are not pre-programmed. Feeling a tad lost?
“The original topic was the right to equal free speech for both sides of the issue. .... In America, one side should not be restricted from their right to free speech.”
As an advocate of free speech, [yeah, right!] you should rejoice, nay, revel, in the free exchange of ideas, not complain about thread drift, and seek to restrict others’ expression. [or is it just those who choose to disagree that you would stifle?]
29 On Apr 4th, 2007, at 3:20pm, Brian wrote:
Eric, speaking of “thread drift”, you have only criticized opposing opinions so far. You haven’t said whether you believe the children should have their freedom of speech like the children wearing pro-gay shirts have. What’s your opinion? And are you tolerant of opposing viewpoints?
30 On Apr 4th, 2007, at 3:48pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
I suppose you might view this as a free speech issue but it seems to be more of a gay civil liberty issue to me. No one forces any student to either tacity or directly endorse gay lifestyles if they don’t agree with that. The day of silence is a way for gay students to have visibility and recognition. For years we have not only been silent but also invisible. It seems that some would like us to return to that status. I don’t see any value in encouraging students to be openly hostile, or passive agressive (like this Day of Truth is) to gay students. It’s one thing to not agree with something but it’s another to demand that you get a platform for that position and then veil your intolerant message in “love” and “truth”. Besides when did any one religion get to decide the sexual morality for the whole country? Why would they presume to do so? I thouhgt we enjoyed religious freedom in this country.
31 On Apr 4th, 2007, at 8:14pm, eric wrote:
“are you tolerant of opposing viewpoints?”
Let’s see;
I AM NOT attempting to write civil law to reflect my religious beliefs, as are you.
I AM NOT attempting to segregate the rights of American society according to my beliefs, as are you.
I AM NOT attempting to have civil authority enforce theological law, as are you. [Sin is a church matter, not a civil one.]
I AM NOT attempting to label my unproven beliefs as ‘truth’, with the implication that all others are untrue.
I will fight for your right to practice your faith, and to state your views. If you attempt to enforce your view as law, use duplicitous, false or untrue statements, or diminish in any way the equality, value, or integrity of any other group or individual, I will oppose you with the same fervor.
Where were you in 1965, when I was up to my butt in Klansmen in Alabama, registering voters, hearing the same supremicist rhetoric?
32 On Apr 5th, 2007, at 8:43am, Brian wrote:
Eric, you said, “I will fight for your right… to state your views”. So you have no opposition to these students?
This is definitely a free speech issue. The Klansmen have been allowed to have parades in many cities. The Day of Truth is wearing a t-shirt and passing out a card if- if the person accepts them. They are not to harass or yell at anyone. Disagreeing with the simple message does not warrant censorship.
33 On Apr 5th, 2007, at 9:24am, eric wrote:
No, Brian, you missed [or ignored] the part where I take strong exception to these students. I’ll re-post; Do try to pay closer attention.
“If you attempt to enforce your view as law, use duplicitous, false or untrue statements, or diminish in any way the equality, value, or integrity of any other group or individual, I will oppose you with the same fervor.”
You fall afoul of points 2 and 3 on this issue. Presenting your belief as ‘truth’ is duplicitous, and the implication that any opposing views are therefore false, certainly attempts to diminish those individuals.
Ref. my post 27, this thread: You never did explain the FULL purpose of a day dedicated to denigrating others; care to elucidate?
34 On Apr 7th, 2007, at 8:25am, Brian wrote:
My beliefs are based on objective truth given by our Creator. If I don’t believe in a creator, then I must believe in evolution. Darwin said that if the fossil record did not show transitional forms or if organisms were found to be too complex to allow transitional steps, then his theory would be false. After 150 years and a tremendous growth in scientific knowledge without evidence for transitional forms, evolution requires far more faith than believing in a creator.
Then you have to ask, has the Creator revealed himself to us. The Bible has repeatedly been supported by manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, prophetic evidence, and scientific evidence. Like the issue of slavery, the criticisms just don’t pan out once they are investigated thoroughly.
35 On Apr 7th, 2007, at 8:41am, Brian wrote:
As stated, all lifestyles are not acceptable.
Without an objective lawgiver, nobody can legitimately claim that his or her beliefs are better than any other belief system. Nobody can legitimately claim that homosexuality or pedophilia or whatever, is right or wrong. There will always be limitations put on somebody’s belief system by somebody else. You know human nature, we will always disagree with each other and there will always be someone that will want to force their belief system onto others, e.g. Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, etc.
Without an objective lawgiver, you can shout your belief system until you are blue; you have no objective truths to say yours is any better than any other system. All beliefs at that point will be relative.
36 On Apr 9th, 2007, at 10:16am, eric wrote:
all lifestyles are not acceptable.
Odd how you get to decide which are and which aren’t.
Nobody can legitimately claim that homosexuality or pedophilia or whatever, is right or wrong.
If you can’t make any ‘legitimate claim that homosexuality is wrong’, then your campaign against it must needs be illegitimate.
.. there will always be someone that will want to force their belief system onto others, e.g. Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, etc
Or Brian.
Who is this ‘objective lawgiver’ you’re on about? I see nothing objective in your approach.
All beliefs at that point will be relative.
Not in line with your dominionist thinking?
Like the issue of slavery, the criticisms just don’t pan out .
What kind of cultish brainwashing leads you to defend slavery, a Taliban-like authoritarianism, eradication of free will and democracy, and still consider it to be ‘American’?
“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, proclaiming Christianity” ..Sinclair Lewis
37 On Apr 9th, 2007, at 12:50pm, Brian wrote:
Looks like the respectful exchange of ideas is over. Thanks to the moderators for their time. Take care and God bless.
38 On Apr 9th, 2007, at 1:09pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
It’s interesting that some in the church have this misguided notion that being gay is akin to sex crimes or the act of adultery or theft or other acts. To be clear, being gay is not an act; it’s one’s sexual orientation. One can be gay and not be in a sexual act. To compare us to criminals shows the true misguided notion that the church has about being gay. One can be gay and find love and live in accord with the gospel. I urge those of you who do not know any gay people to find some in your community, perhaps at a UCC church or Methodist church or even your Baptist churches and deepen your understanding of the nature of human sexuality and spirituality. Being gay is not a crime it’s insulting to imply that the two are the same.
39 On Apr 10th, 2007, at 5:51am, steve wrote:
Not being a scholar of Greek I had to do a bit research to get to the bottom of whether 1Tim1:10 actually was a defense against slavery (see Brian’s post #22). Well Brian’s interpretation of the original word to mean enslaver isn’t the same as slave trader. A number of versions of the bible translate the Greek word ‘andrapodistes’ to be kidnapper. This is because 1Tim1:10 was written in a time when, although slavery was regarded as OK - stealing other peoples slaves or enslaving others who under law should be free was not considered so. 1Tim1:10 simply reflects the rules of the day i.e. slavery is fine.
40 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 8:21am, eric wrote:
“Today, Dominionists hide their agenda, and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word Dominionism.”
Katherine Yurica, ‘The Despoiling of America’
Eric, to Brian: “ Not in line with your dominionist thinking? “
Brian, in reply: “Looks like the respectful exchange of ideas is over. Thanks to the moderators for their time. Take care and God bless”
“It’s twue, it’s twue what they say!”
Madeline Kahn, as Lili von Shtupp in “Blazing Saddles”.
41 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 8:48am, Dan Valdes wrote:
“Dominionism” is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.
It is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is prim
arily limited to critics of the Christian Right.
42 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 11:31am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Dan,
Your explanation of ‘dominionism’ is fairly accurate, though perhaps a bit incomplete. I definitely appreciate the ‘cool-headed’ approach you took and pointing out that it’s rarely self-descriptive.
Since the topic has been referenced in this thread, I think it appropriate to highlight Dr. Land’s take on ‘dominionism’. At the risk of appearing like I’m plugging a book, I’ll reference Land’s latest, The Divided States of America?, in which he spends a good deal of time addressing the “theocratic bogeymen” who push the term.
From Chapter 7 - Is There a New Religion Penalty in America?:
And from Chapter 9 - Does America Have a Special Role in the World?:
Obviously, this is only a portion of what he has to say about it, but it’s decent summary for the sake of this thread.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: Matt is on staff at the ERLC.)
43 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 7:03pm, eric wrote:
Matt: Now we know how you get to exceed the 1k character limit… ;)
I didn’t mean to derail the thread, but I see a ‘creeping dominionism’at work here. Most of those involved would not consider tyhemselves to be a part of the movement, but when people vote for or against civil law based of the ‘Will of God’, that is a step toward establishing a theonomy.
One has only to look at the laws being proposed on same-sex marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc, and the fervent support [or opposition] based on Biblical stricture, to see the effect. I am afraid for the nation, and I DO “take conservative religious people seriously”. Very, very, seriously..
44 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 8:34pm, steve wrote:
Matt,
Dan’s explanation of dominionism is not his - he has simply cut and paste from Wikipedia (Does this site have a policy on plagiarism?).
Be that as it may the defense that Richard Land and the ERLC does not support dominionism or Christianism or theocracy etc is pretty lame when you compare his statements with the ERLC Vision Statement: “An American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority”.
Given this I actually have to disagree with Eric - the dominionists have not hidden their agenda. Their desire to impose their values on all of America is there for all to see. Certainly as far as the ERLC and SBC are concerned.
45 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 12:28pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Golly, lots to reply to.
Since Eric posted first, I’ll reply to him first…
- on character limit (post 40): What can I say? Membership has it’s privileges. :-)
- Oh, and while I disagree with much of what you’ve posted here, your Blazing Saddles reference did not go unappreciated. :-)
- I presume I (and Land for that matter) get credit for not “cutting and running” at the mention of “the word dominionism.” (post 40)
- Eric said,
By that reasoning I could attribute the involvement of just about anybody to just about any movement, a la guilty by association or some such reason. But fair enough, I can see where some people may be caught up in something larger than they realize. The difference is when you attribute that to people who understand what ‘theocracy’ or ‘theonomy’ means and have actively disassociated themselves with such movements, as has Dr. Land and the ERLC. (As evidenced by the above quote from The Divided States of America and other resources I can provide.)
(Yes, I’m aware Steve has taken issue with that based on our Vision statement, but fear not, I’ll respond to that and to more of Eric’s #43 post shortly.)
(FULL DISCLOSURE: Matt is on staff at the ERLC.)
46 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 2:57pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve said,
Duly noted. If this is true (I haven’t checked), please cite sources whenever possible. It’s not like we’re not looking for APA formatting or even a hyperlink. A simple (Wikipedia) will suffice. This is for your benefit… giving credit where credit is do can only enhance your credibility.
(Back to the ‘dominionism’ thing in next post)
47 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 3:02pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Ok, back to this ‘dominionism’ mumbo jumbo…
Eric said,
Steve said,
Au contrair (sp?), my secularist friends. Where in that Vision statement do you see the word “government?” Anywhere? Hm?
It’s not there. The word is “society.” Just as you wish to see society ditch every vestige of religious influence, we seek for society to embrace “Judeo-Christian values.”
Look, we as American citizens have every right to bring our beliefs to light in the public square (society) which includes effecting legislation based on our beliefs. You also have this right, regardless of your worldview.
When a majority of Americans, thru their elected officials, vote on a particular issue, it’s called democracy, not dominionism. If legislation is passed that happens to echo a biblical principle, that’s not “theocracy”, it’s called the democratic process.
There is one main difference between what we (as Christians) do on the issues you referenced (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc) in the public square and what you hope to do (based on your comments I’ve read): You seek to shut people of faith out of the debate simply because our beliefs happen to be based on religious conviction…
To quote Steve from another post,
The ERLC doesn’t make statements like that about atheists or secularists, or anyone with whom we disagree.
In the words of a colleague and friend of mine, “If ‘dominionism’ is Christians applying their beliefs to public policy in a representative democracy, (which it is not), then what is the ‘-ism’ for applying atheistic beliefs to policy?”
For that matter, what is the ‘-ism’ for shutting people of religious faith out of the debate?
We don’t seek government sponsorship of our religion, nor do we seek to shut anyone out of any public policy debate. All we ask from government is a level playing field.
Much like this thread… make your case before the American people. Put it to a vote. It’s called democracy.
‘Theocratic dominionists’ may exist. They do not, however, have large representation in SBC leadership. To cast them as such is simply inaccurate nonsense.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: Matt is on staff at the ERLC.)
48 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 3:34pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
(One more, than I’m out for the day.)
Steve also said,
Do you not seek the same thing from your worldview?
I affirm your right to voice your opinion on any given issue. I do not seek to block you from the process simply because you don’t share my faith.
I would hope that you as a fellow American affirm my right to apply my values to my role as an American citizen.
Values will be imposed. The question is, who’s values? Yours, or mine? Or both?
As Dr. Land has pointed out, laws against rape, laws against murder, laws against theft, laws against racism are all the ‘imposition of morality’ on the law. Enough people in the United States have agreed that murder is a bad thing. So murder is against the law. Enough people in the U.S. agree that rape is a bad thing. So rape is against the law.
Should we scrap the murder laws because it happens to agree with the Old Testament? “Thou shall not murder” comes to mind.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed (rightly so) that all people should be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin. So he brought his religiously informed values to bear on public policy. He happened to be a Baptist minister. According to your arguments (Steve and Eric), Dr. King shouldn’t have done so because you don’t like the fact that his beliefs were based on religious conviction.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: Matt is on staff at ERLC.com)
49 On Apr 13th, 2007, at 7:20am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Yes I didn’t intend for anyone to think that was my opinion. I did feel that term needed some explanation. Will do credit sources from now on. Thanks for pointing it out.
50 On Apr 13th, 2007, at 8:37am, eric wrote:
Beware a moderator bearing opinions! ... ;~)
Matt, all the good ideas in the world are not directly traceable to a verse in the Bible. Indeed, some verses were lifted from other faiths and societies. Some are ‘universal truths’ of ALL faiths and societies. Your MLK reference completely ignores the huge resistance to integration from Bible-totin’, Bible-quotin’ white folks. [I took part in the voter registration drives, and as a white northerner, got a look at a very unpleasant side of southern piety.]
The Christian faith’s arrogation of all things good is at best disingenuous. As you pointed out re: attribution of sources, credibility suffers when full disclosure is not made. Slavery was NOT abolished in the British Empire by Christian ideals. An idealist, who happened to be Christian led the movement.
Similarly, your examples of law. Rape, murder, and theft are illegal in China and Iran; hardly the fruits of a Christian society. In short, (too late for that, I know) GET REAL!
51 On Apr 14th, 2007, at 10:45am, eric wrote:
Matt: Re: your post 47.
Your distinction between ‘government’ and ‘society’ is sophistry at its finest!
Any measure which involves force of law is, by definition a power of government. By advocating governmental power to enforce religious law, [’sin’ being a breach of church law] you are establishing a degree of theonomy. [as well as disregarding the 1st Amendment.
Your attempt to invoke ‘democracy’ to justify trampling the rights of others is exactly why it must NOT be allowed to happen.
The Jews in Germany were less than 2% of the populace. The majority of Germans supported Hitler when he stripped them of property rights. Democracy or tyranny?
Governor George Wallace [Alabama] won the 1964 election in a landslide, on the slogan “Segregation today, segregation forever.” Democracy or supremecism?
More to follow.
52 On Apr 14th, 2007, at 2:05pm, steve wrote:
Matt, imagine Richard Land was President of the US and the ERLC controlled Congress - what laws would be enacted and how would they affect non-believers? I’ll hazard a guess at some…
Non-Christians will not be allowed to engage in homosexual practices.
Non-Christians will not be allowed to have an abortion.
Non-Christians will not be allowed to undertake embryonic stem cell research.
Now imagine I was President and congress was controlled by secular humanists - how would our laws affect Christians? Well they wouldn’t - in so much as Christians are simply seen as having the same rights as all other members of society.
Christians will be allowed to not practice homosexuality.
Christians will be allowed not to have an abortion.
Christians will be allowed not to undertake embryonic stem cell research … IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO.
Do you get the gist Matt. By actively lobbying Government to take away people’s rights because God said so you are trying to implement a theocracy.
53 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 11:50am, dan valdes wrote:
Tribune staff report
Published April 17, 2007, 6:38 PM CDT
A U.S. District Court Judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of Neuqua Valley High School’s attempts to ban a student from wearing a “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt. The senior wanted to wear the shirt as part of a national effort this week by Christian students to publicly oppose homosexual behavior.
The group had asked U.S. District Judge William T. Hart for a preliminary injunction allowing Zamecnik to wear the T-shirt Thursday, on the national “Day of Truth.” Alliance attorneys wanted Zamecnik to wear the shirt while their civil suit against the Naperville high school continues.
School officials forbade Zamecnik from wearing the same T-shirt last school year, prompting her lawsuit, attorneys for the Alliance said.
54 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 2:35pm, dan valdes wrote:
Associated Press
NEW CASTLE, Ind.—Tensions over a Day of Silence in support of gay rights led to a lockdown at New Castle Chrysler High School.
Superintendent John Newby would not confirm students’ claims that a student had threatened to take a gun to school Wednesday.
People were in their shirts for it, people were in their shirts against it, and it just caused a lot of drama that I didn’t think was needed,” said student Kayla Boyles.
Tommie Barnes, mother of a freshman, said she also was concerned about potential conflict over today’s planned Day of Truth rebuttal to the Day of Silence. That also coincides with a national observance, this one planned by the Alliance Defense Fund. Its day is devoted to countering the “homosexual agenda” and presenting an “opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective,” according to the fund’s Web site.
55 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 2:41pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
the rest of the AP story......
Barnes picked her daughter up at school early Wednesday and planned to keep her home today.
“I don’t want her singled out as a Christian who is against everybody, because she isn’t. She’s a good witness on her own,” Barnes said of her daughter. “We’re a very openly Christian family. I have a family member who is gay.”
56 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 8:17pm, steve wrote:
Matt, just to tidy up a couple of loose ends.
In your post 47 you quoted me as saying “So on second thought maybe Christians should be kept out of the whole process.” Yes I did say this but as you know (and failed to disclose) I was referring to Christian organizations getting involved in Head Start. I was not referring to individuals.
In post 48 you refer to me as a fellow American - hmmm.. given my Country’s history of following the US blindly into various wars such as Vietnam and Iraq I can see how you may draw the conclusion, however, I’ve made the disclosure before that I’m an Australian.
One good thing about Australia is that if any State or Federal government were to even think about subsidizing religious advertising then they would quickly be shown the door. My interest in your site is to do my bit to ensure it stays that way - the religious right here take their lead from the US.
57 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 9:36am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve wrote,
My apologies. I definitely missed that disclosure and that makes a big difference.
This explains a profound difference in the way that you and I approach many of the issues we address on this site, specifically church/state issues. Not only are you an atheist and I a Christian, but we’re also approaching it with entirely different cultural experiences.
Sure, we speak basically the same language (though you likely sound a lot cooler speaking it than I) and it’s possible we both trace our lineage back to the UK, but that doesn’t at all mean we understand one another’s culture.
For example… The ‘religious histories’ of our respective countries greatly influence how you and I understand the role of religion in public life. As our conversations have revealed, there are profound differences.
Oddly enough, this knowledge actually makes me more interested in our discussions.
58 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:01am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve said,
Presuming you’re referring to the above ‘t-shirt case’, how does a student wearing a t-shirt to school equate to the state “subsidizing religious advertising”? Have I accurately understood your statement?
If I do, than as mentioned in the article, students here in the US don’t lose their right to free speech simply b/c they step on to (public) school property. Now, had the school paid for and handed out the shirts or mandated their wearing, then I agree we’d have an issue. That’s not what happened.
The ‘Day of Silence’ students are allowed to wear their shirts. Why shouldn’t the ‘Day of Truth’ students be allowed to wear theirs?
All the limitations in the 1st Amendment are on the government (state), not individuals.
(Perhaps this case is a good argument for school uniforms, but that’s a discussion for another time. :-)
59 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:04am, steve wrote:
Thanks Matt. You’re right about the UK lineage in fact I was actually born in London. The UK connection, however, does raise an interesting issue…
I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere on this site a caustic comment from Richard Land about Kevin Phillips, however, have you read his book ‘American Theocracy’? His analysis of the role religion played in the fall of the British Empire with what is currently happening in the US makes for an interesting read.
60 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:20am, steve wrote:
Actually Matt my reference to religious advertising relates to the subsidizing license plate debate. Sorry for the confusion - too many threads going at the moment.
With regard to the T-shirt debate I have already answered your questions earlier in the thread.
61 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:27am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
I haven’t read Phillips’ book. Dr. Land, however, has and (as I mentioned in post 42 above) spends a great deal of time in his book refuting the notion that the UK example and the US example are analogous.
Phillips may or may not be right in his “analysis of the role religion played in the fall of the British Empire”. Where he errs is when he equates that with the US situation.
Even Dr. Land has said on multiple occassions, “Government-sponsored religion is like getting hugged by a python—it squeezes all the life out of you, and you fall over dead.” He points to the “empty cathedrals of Europe” (UK included) as evidence.
Now, I’m curious, since you have read Phillips’ book, would you read Land’s book (The Divided States of America) if I send it to you on my dime? (I presume that’s international shipping.)
62 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:54am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
First, on the t-shirt/advertising thing (comments 58, 60): Cool. I understand, I thought there might be confusion. Thanks for clarifying. Oh, and I actually agree that there are legitimate questions that can be raised on that license plate case. (Notice the ERLC hasn’t taken a position on the license plate thing… we simply put it out there for discussion. According the volume of posts, we were on to something.)
More on Phillips: short of reading Dr. Land’s book, I recommend this article from First Things that reviews 3 similar books (including Phillips’) titled ”Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy”.
It provides another perspective on this whole ‘theocracy’ nonsense.
63 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:55am, steve wrote:
Thanks Matt, I’d love copy. It’s ironic really the Phillips book was a freebie as well (a friend of mine gave it to me after a trip to the US to help out with Democrat’s Presidential campaign).
How do I give you delivery details without inviting unwanted letters or visitors from people who may not see eye to eye with me? You obviously have access to my email address.
64 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:59am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
On the book: I’ll send you an email to exchange the appropriate contact/shipping information.
65 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 8:57pm, Elizabeth wrote:
Wow! All of these comments got WAY off track of the original topic. Why can’t everyone have free speech rights rather than everyone EXCEPT Christians. I don’t think it was necessary to put down people who believe the Bible as uneducated and unsophistocated...based on what scale? It sounds like we’re not the only ones who are judgemental.
66 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:04pm, eric wrote:
Matt: I read and copied your ‘Theocracy’ link. Rarely have I encuntered a more lucid, [ but duplicitous] apogletic defense of the attempt by the ‘Talebangelist’ right.
“But the clout of institutional religion is at low ebb in American politics.”
How then would you account fot the unprecedented influence of evangelical fervor in the present administration, fromm the Oval Office, through the Pentagon and the DOJ [Regent Uviversity graduates] ? A low ebb? Balderdash!
“..the evangelical Protestantism that figures so prominently in anti-theocracy tracts is distinguished precisely by its lack of any centralized ecclesiastical government.
So? The commonality of purpose in establishing a theonomic regeime need not have a centralized focus, other than ‘the will of God’.
[more later; have to work early in the A of M
67 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 5:44am, dan valdes wrote:
WOODBURN, Indiana (AP)—The column in the student newspaper seemed innocent enough: advocating tolerance for people “different than you.”
But since sophomore Megan Chase’s words appeared January 19 in The Tomahawk, the newspaper at Woodlan Junior-Senior High School, her newspaper adviser has been suspended and is fighting for her job, and charges of censorship and First Amendment violations are clouding this conservative northeastern Indiana community.
At issue is whether Chase’s opinion column advocating tolerance of homosexuals was suitable for a student newspaper distributed to students in grades 7 through 12 and whether newspaper adviser Amy Sorrell followed protocol in allowing the column to be printed.
Media advocates say the debate has deeper ramifications.
68 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 7:16am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Elizabeth everyone does have free speech rights the same including us Christians. YOu can proclaim the gospel from any street corner in the nation. You can be sure that your speech is protected in a country that protects the rights of the Rev. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church to protest the funerals of fallen Americans, you certainly can proclaim the love of God without doubt. You should have no uncertainty that if you would like to say “Jesus is the living God” you are protected.
69 On Aug 24th, 2007, at 3:23pm, Jeremy Kirkman wrote:
The organizers of the Day of Truth clearly don’t understand the point behind the silence on the Day of Silence. From the cards they hand out, it seems they believe we are silent as a freedom or a right. However, the point of the Day of Silence is to protest violence against gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals and to remember those who can’t speak out of fear.
70 On Aug 29th, 2007, at 5:34am, Rick Hudgins Jr. wrote:
Excellent point, Mr. Kirkman.
71 On Dec 12th, 2007, at 9:46am, Casey Sheffield wrote:
I’m sorry, but you are terribly mistaken about the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is NOT a day to support homosexuality. It is a day of rememberance for all of the people who have been silenced, hurt or killed because of their sexual preference or identity. To call it a day “In support of homosexuality” is completly off the mark. Students do NOT wear “gay-pride” t-shirts, and stay silent to show their support for poeple who are gay, but to show their support for people who are being discriminmated against every day because they happen to be different.
And that is why students are not allowed to wear “Striaght Prode” shirts or organize a day against homosexuality. Because the previous day was not a gay pride day, but a day in support of those who have suffered because they were truthful.
Just thought you might want to know. :]
~Casey