To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
11.10.2009
10.31.2009
10.22.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
10.10.2009
10.09.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
10.07.2009
Socrates meets Jesus
I just found this in a word document on my computer from a while ago. I have no idea where I got it from but someone deserves the credit :). It's interesting.
Socrates Meets Jesus
by Prometheus
Socrates
Good morning, Jesus, I have heard much of your marvelous teachings. In my own modest way I am a philosopher here in Athens. I am told you have great wisdom and certainly that is indicated by the throng of admirers that follow you through the streets. If you have a few moments to spare, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me with the answers to some of the puzzling problems I have been wrestling with all my life
Jesus
I am as a fisher of men in my search for followers. I bring the truth of God to all men. Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered knock and it shall be open unto to thee.
Socrates
There is one basic question that has always been uppermost in my mind. Although it has always been an insurmountable obstacle to me in my search for the truth and meaning, I am sure that with your learning you will find it far to easy and think me a foolish old man. I have always longed to live honorably and nobly, but it seems that I have merely stumbled through life without even even knowing what was honorable or noble. With my limited understanding, it often seems to me that life, even with all its sound and fury, really signifies nothing. Please tell me: How should a man live; what is the purpose of life.
Jesus
To serve and worship God.
Socrates
Which God.
Jesus
There is only one god.
Socrates
Oh. You should live here in Athens. We have several to choose from.
Jesus
There is only one true God.
Socrates
Of course. And which one is the true God?
Jesus
The true god is Lord God.
Socrates
Yes. But who is Lord God? Or what is he?
Jesus
He is the infinity of wisdom, love, compassion, peace, and mercy. He is the creator of heaven and earth all things in the universe.
Socrates
Of all things?
Jesus
Yes-all things. He is omnipotent. He is master and controller and maker of all things. He is omnipresent-nothing can happen that he does not know beforehand.
Socrates
Did he create plagues, wars, death, suffering and evil.
Jesus
No. These things and all other evils and tragedies come from the Devil, the prince of darkness; or from man's weakness and evil nature. God is all goodness and free of evil; only good can come from God
Socrates
And who for gracious sakes is the devil? Surely he must be a god to be able to visit such powerful calamities on mankind: Yet you have just said there is only one God. Also you have said that all that exists comes from God: And now you say that only good comes from God and all evil comes from someone called the devil. These would seem to be contradictions. I am afraid that your religion is far too complex for this old head to fathom. Yet I will be an eager student and try hard to understand, if you will but help me. Please explain: who is the devil and how can all things come from God and yet not come from God?
Jesus:
The Devil is a fallen angel who is ambitious. He rebelled against God and wants to overthrow all his works.
Socrates:
What in Zeus' name is an angel?
Jesus:
An angel is an angel.
Socrates:
Of course, that's an identity. Socrates is Socrates. But, you see, it doesn't mean anything to me, inexperienced as I am in your religion. Although it's true as true can be, it doesn't relate to anything I can understand. Compare it to something I am familiar with.
Jesus:
An angel is an angel.
Socrates:
Please forgive me for my stolid ignorance. Understand that I am no authority such as you are. I have never seen an angel or heard of one. I am told that you had many strange visions when you wandered in the desert for 40 days without eating. Pray tell, what do they look like, these angels?
Jesus:
They have wings.
Socrates:
So do gnats. Could you be a little more specific?
Jesus:
They look like people except they have wings.
Socrates:
What else? They can fly, I assume
Jesus:
Yes, that's what the wings are for.
Socrates:
Of course--I might have known. You say they look like men. How are they different from men?
Jesus:
The are much better than men, and they never die.
Socrates:
How better than men?
Jesus:
More virtuous and more powerful. Much more powerful.
Socrates:
They are super-human, then.
Jesus:
Yes. Absolutely!
Socrates:
Then they are superhuman and they are immortal. We in Athens would call such beings gods.
Jesus:
No! God is more powerful than they.
Socrates:
So is Zeus to us more powerful than other Olympic gods, but the others are still by definition gods. How would you define the term God?
Jesus:
God is the creator of all. He is all power, knowledge, wisdom and the epitome of justice, mercy, compassion, goodness; and peace.
Socrates:
These qualities are, however, not necessarily consistent. It is not possible for a person to be just, peaceful and merciful, all in one instance or situation. If a person or a nation deserves punishment by the rule of justice, you must punish him or wage war on them, but this would be a violation of the rule of peace or mercy. No one being could have all these qualities because they contradict each other; they cannot exist together in the same person at the same time. It is as though a man had turned both left and right at the same corner at the same time, while still remaining whole and entire.
Jesus:
God works his wonders in mysterious ways.
Socrates:
It would seem that you have many gods just as we do in Athens, only you don't call them gods.
Jesus:
No! God is all powerful.
Socrates:
Then the only difference is the degree of power?
Jesus:
No. God is better and more virtuous than they. Sin is impossible for him.
Socrates:
What is sin?
Jesus:
It is an act of disobedience to God.
Socrates:
I see from this that God could not sin, because he could not be disobedient to himself. But since sin is impossible for him, it is no more a mark of achievement for him to be free of sin than it is a mark of achievement for a rock to be unable to move. It's merely a matter of definition. What do they do, these angles?
Jesus:
They do errands for God.
Socrates:
Why if God is all powerful, does he need others to do errands for him?
Jesus:
He likes it that way.
Socrates:
They are his slaves, then?
Jesus:
No, they serve him willingly.
Socrates:
What happens if they don't serve him willingly?
Jesus:
There were several angels led by Satan, the devil, who rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven to eternal torment and punishment.
Socrates:
What is heaven?
Jesus:
It is a wonderful place high in the sky. The streets are paved with gold. Everything is peaceful and beautiful there. God lives there and all who believe in God go there when they die. Men have eternal life there and are given wings and worship God and play harps in eternal bliss and happiness forever. It is the purpose and goal of all of man's life to go to heaven when he dies.
Socrates:
This sounds much like the accounts I have heard given by those who have eaten the lotus flower. If this was the purpose of life, could we not simply become intoxicated on wine or drugs and feel this way all the time, like the beggars and drunks we see on the other side of the city?
Jesus:
The Bible says thou shalt not partake of wine or strong drink.
Socrates:
If is the sole purpose of man's life to get to heaven, why does he not simply kill himself and go there?
Jesus:
Thou shalt no kill.
Socrates:
If God wanted man to go to heaven, why did he put man on earth in the first place? Why did he not simply put man in heaven from the beginning? I find it hard to believe that man with all his capabilities, desires, and complexities was created merely to sit and bow and scrape and worship. Certainly there is not, nor ever was, a human tyrant so vain and proud that he wanted his subjects merely to bow and scrape obsequiously and subserviently before him from dawn to dusk, let alone for all eternity. I certainly can understand why Satan wanted to rebel against such a static, regimented, oppressive, boring society. From what you have told me so far, I would have had to side with Satan in the rebellion, for although I consider myself a humble man as men go, I could not bow and scrape and sing praises all day to a being who threatened me with punishment and eternal torment if I did not.
Jesus:
The Lord thy God is a jealous god and thou shalt have no other gods before him.
Socrates:
Why did Satan rebel? Did he know that God was as powerful as you describe him to be and that he was certain to be defeated?
Jesus:
Satan rebelled because he was proud and wanted to rule heaven himself. He knew partly of God's great power (that it was greater than his own), but he wanted power so badly that he was willing to take any chance.
Socrates:
Satan was certainly very brave, then; to strive against a foe he could not defeat.
Jesus:
He was sinful because he was disobedient to the will of God.
Socrates:
It seems to me that the only difference between Satan and God is the degree of power.
Jesus:
God is perfect. He is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin.
Socrates:
Of course; by definition he is without sin because he could not be disobedient to himself. The only real difference between the two is the degree of power. Therefore, Satan was not wrong or sinful to rebel against God, he was only wrong to lose the rebellion. For if he had won, God would be the sinner: because God would have been disobedient to Satan who would be better than God or the other angels because he could not sin against himself, that is, be disobedient to himself, and he would have proven himself all powerful. If Satan had won, he would have become God, by your definition because he would have been all powerful and without sin. Who knows but that this didn't happen? From your description of God, I begin to suspect at this point that it did.
Jesus:
God is more than mere power and righteous lack of sin: he is infinite justice, mercy, peace and compassion, and all forgiving. Satan is vicious, selfish, destructive, and evil.
Socrates:
What happened to Satan after he was thrown out of heaven?
Jesus:
He was thrown into Hell by God where he was tormented and tortured for all eternity.
Socrates:
What is Hell and why did Satan stay there if it is so painful and unpleasant?
Jesus:
God locked him in Hell and he was not permitted to leave. God created Hell as a place to punish Satan and all men who do not have faith in God. It is an eternal burning inferno or torture, agony, and torment: all sinful men who do not ask God for forgiveness and have no faith in him go there for all eternity to be tortured by the devil.
Socrates:
If God is just or merciful, how can he do this to an enemy who fought him in battle. Why did God not simply pardon Satan after defeat as men often do to a captured nation after they defeat it? Mankind would seem in victory to be more merciful than God; for they do not treat the vanquished to such terrible torments for even a lifetime, let alone for all eternity. Why did God not show the qualities that you described as his justice, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness to Satan? Certainly God's warlike nature is in marked contrast with your definition of the term God as being peaceful, merciful and all forgiving.
Jesus:
God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
Socrates:
If Satan is locked in Hell, how can he bring plagues and torments on mankind and why does God allow it if he is all powerful and all good? If God is all powerful, how is it that he permits this evil Satan to survive? Why does he not destroy him? Although I begin to wonder, at this point, if the opposite course would not be better.
Jesus:
God allows Satan to be free to bring plagues and torments on mankind in order to punish man for his sin in the Garden of Eden.
Socrates:
What is the Garden of Eden?
Jesus:
When God created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, he put them in the Garden of Eden. When they were created, they were pure and without sin. That is how God created them. The Garden of Eden was a beautiful paradise, and it provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed. They did no have to work but merely pluck the fruit from the branches from lush trees. They were as innocent and untroubled as children and knew nothing about carnal fleshly love. They had each other for companions and adored and worshiped God who visited them once in a while.
Socrates:
Why did God create mankind?
Jesus:
He was lonely.
Socrates:
Why did he not simply create additional angels who were more his equal rather than this much lower form of life, Man? Could it be that he wanted obsequious slaves that he could look down on who would fear, reverence, and worship him?
Jesus:
Since he is our creator, we owe him our worship, reverence, and obedience.
Socrates:
Is the child of a criminal duty-bound to be obedient to his father, or does he have a right and obligation to judge for himself between right and wrong? What sin, what act of disobedience, did man commit in the Garden of Eden?
Jesus:
In the center of the Garden of Eden, God put the tree of knowledge. God told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the fruit of that tree. Satan went to the Garden disguised as a snake and told Eve that she would gain great knowledge if she ate the fruit. Satan said that God had told them not to eat the fruit because he was afraid that if they did they would become as great as he was. Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin.
Socrates:
Is knowledge evil that God would want to keep it from us? Why did God want to keep us from gaining knowledge? Did he want to keep us subservient slaves groveling under his feet? It seems to me that we owe Satan thanks and worship for his help. Satan seems rather like the Titan Prometheus, who in defiance of the orders of the gods brought man the knowledge of fire. For this service to man, Prometheus like Satan was subjected to torment and torture for all eternity. Certainly human life would be worth a great deal less that it is without love, fire and knowledge.
Jesus:
But Satan was lying to Eve, because we did not become as great as God by eating the fruit. He was lying to us merely because he wanted to destroy the work of God.
Socrates:
If God is all powerful, why did he allow Satan to come to the Garden and tempt Eve? If God did not want man to eat the fruit, why did he put the tree in the Garden in the first place? If God did not want man to make sexual love, why did he equip man with the organs necessary for it? If God did not want man to commit the original sin, why did he give man a desire for knowledge, experience, adventure and carnal love?
Jesus:
God put the tree in the Garden and allowed Satan to come there because he wanted to test mankind.
Socrates:
You have said that God was all knowing; that he knows everything that happens before it happens. Certainly God already knew how man would behave in any situation.
Jesus:
God gave man free will. It was just as possible for man to be virtuous and obey God as it was for man to be sinful and disobey the word of God.
Socrates:
Did God know that man would sin?
Jesus:
He knew that man would sin but he allowed man the free will to make his own choice.
Socrates:
Could God have created man so he could not sin? Could God have created man so that he would not have sinned in this particular situation?
Jesus:
Yes, since God is all powerful he could have done that, but he did not want men to be mere puppets; he wanted men to have free will.
Socrates:
Could God have created man with two heads and three legs or any other way if he wanted to?
Jesus:
God could have created man any way he wanted to.
Socrates:
Did God create man the way he intended to? Did God intend for man to have one head, two legs and to appear exactly as he does today?
Jesus:
Of course: God is perfect and all powerful; he could not make a mistake.
Socrates:
Then God did not make a mistake, but created man exactly as he intended to in every way?
Jesus:
Yes.
Socrates:
Then you and I were created exactly as God intended us to be? And Adam and Eve were created exactly as God intended them to be?
Jesus:
Yes. It is as I have said.
Socrates:
Did everything that is part of man come from God?
Jesus:
Yes: God is the master and controller and creator of all.
Socrates:
Did the devil or any other force create any part of man?
Jesus:
No. God is sole creator of all.
Socrates:
Then, if God created man's eyes, legs and mind, he also created man's desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus:
He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates:
Is man's nature a part of man, just as hands and feet are a part of man?
Jesus:
Yes. Man's nature is a part of man.
Socrates:
Who created man?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who created man's hands and feet?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who gave man two hands and two feet and created them exactly as they are today, and exactly as they were in the time of Adam and Eve?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who created man's nature?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who gave man his evil nature and weaknesses? God did, because everything that is a part of man came from God and God alone.
Jesus:
God gave man free will.
Socrates:
Who intended for men to have two hands, the devil?
Jesus:
No. God intended for man to have two hands.
Socrates:
Who intended for man to have weaknesses and an evil nature, the devil? No. God intended for man to have weaknesses and evil nature. If mankind is flawed or evil or weak, it is because God put the flaw or weakness there and intended it to be there. Let me tell you another parable. Have you ever seen the birds killing fish in the sea? Who put it into that bird to fang and kill that flying fish? Who's to doom, man, when the judge himself is dragged before the bar?
Jesus:
Man has free will. God did not force him to sin. He merely gave him the opportunity to be virtuous or sinful. Man would have been of no value to God if he had made him a mere puppet who could do nothing but good. He wanted to give man the opportunity to be good or evil according to his own merit and choice.
Socrates:
It is absurd for God to punish man after creating him. It is as though a Homer wrote an ode about a pig and then whipped and lashed the pages or cast them on an eternal unconsuming fire, because he disliked the qualities of the animal. Or that a master sculptor made a perfect statue of a pig and then lashed it for all eternity because he disliked the traits of the animal.
Jesus:
God did not create man with an evil nature that predetermined that he must sin.
Socrates:
Then who did?
Jesus:
God created man to be innocent and naturally good. God put man in a paradise, the Garden of Eden. He gave man free will and allowed Satan to come into the Garden of Eden to test mankind. God did not predetermine that man would sin.
Socrates:
But God created everything that went into this combination, situation or environment. When he created each of the elements or ingredients in the situation, he knew exactly how each would react with the others in any circumstance; because he was all knowing. He intended for each element to be exactly as it was because he was all-powerful and could not make a mistake. It is as though a scientist or a physician combined several ingredients into a medicine, which although harmless in themselves, when combined become a deadly poison; and then after administering it to a patient, disavowed any responsibility for his death. In just this way, God combined many things; an innocent man, a tree of knowledge, a beautiful garden and an angel.
Jesus:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Socrates:
It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
Jesus:
I warn you, God is not mocked. Do not talk in this way or you will be thrown into the fiery furnace where you will gnash your teeth, forever in torture and torment.
Socrates:
I thought our Olympic gods were vicious and unreasonable, but they seem veritable lambs of mercy and forbearance compared to this God of yours: who torments and tortures you for all eternity for doing what he forces you to do in the very making of you and your environment.
Jesus:
Oh, give thanks unto the Lord for he is good; For his mercy endureth forever.
Socrates:
Why, if he is a god of peace and mercy does he torment mankind and permit, even encourage and demand, bloodshed on earth; and permit, even demand Satan to tempt and torture mankind: since you said that nothing happens that he does not only know about, but will to happen? An all-powerful being who knows all and creates all, determines all, because he knows the way his creations will act.
Jesus:
God gave man free will because he did not want him to be a mere puppet. God did not want man to sin. God was very disappointed when man sinned.
Socrates:
God could not possibly be disappointed because he knew the nature of man and all else that he created. Since he is all powerful, he intended man to sin. Indeed he forced man to sin by creating man with certain desires and weaknesses.
Jesus:
What you say is blasphemy. God created the world and all the plants and animals for the pleasure of man. Look at the beautiful world around you. How can you say such terrible things about God after he has given so much to you?
Socrates:
I certainly couldn't believe this. How could a god who was so vicious, sadistic and hateful create a world with so much beauty? Even man with as much evil as there seems at times to be in him, still at other times exhibits incredible strength, self sacrifice and loyalty, and degrees of the conflicting qualities of mercy and justice. Your Lord God has none of these qualities. Certainly there never was a man however vile who could do to another man what you claim God does to those who do not respect him: torture them for all eternity. Any man, no matter how foully he has been mangled, tortured or murdered--like Priam whose whole clan was slain or Agamemnon who was murdered by his wife and her lover--would eventually relent after years or centuries of torturing his foe.
Jesus:
I am the way, the truth and the light. None come to the Father except by me. Believe in me and have eternal life in heaven; deny me and suffer eternal torture in Hell.
Socrates:
If I did accept your system, I would have to side with Satan against your God; even knowing that I would be tormented and tortured forever. The injustice and viciousness of your God is so appalling. I have heard terrible accounts of human sacrifices by savages on distant coasts; but certainly, even they never thought of torturing their victims for all eternity. I have heard frightening accounts of terrible monsters, Cyclops, gorgons and medusas, but these monsters are as tame and gentle as lambs, compared to those described in your book of Revelation. And you tell me of Lord God's peaceful, merciful and all-forgiving nature.
Jesus:
We are all the children of God. God is our father and does not want us to sin but must punish us when we do. He is just and merciful and only sends us, his children, to Hell, damnation and eternal torment when it is our own fault. When we sin and lust after sex like Adam and Eve, he has no choice but to punish us, by torturing us in eternal fire forever.
Socrates:
You say we are all the children of God. He is a veritable monster to harass his own children for having the eyes, legs and desires that he gave them. Be these juggling fiends no more believed, that palter with us in a double sense and keep the word of promise to our ear but to break it to our hope. I see not purpose, nor reason, nor truth, nor mercy, nor justice; naught but capricious naked power. Indeed, human beings, for all their caprice, selfishness and weaknesses, seem to have more of these qualities than your God. Your God is a demonic, sadistic, psychotic fiend.
Jesus:
We are merely human and cannot understand the infinite mysteries of God. It is our duty to be faithful and believe and follow him. It is not ours to reason why but to do and die.
Socrates:
Not reason? But why were we given minds? How are we to determine how to live and what is the purpose of life? What are we doing discussing this now? Why have you been preaching to people all of your life? Why have you risked your life in defiance of the orders of the Romans?
Jesus:
By faith are we saved, lest any man should boast.
Socrates:
Faith. What do you mean by faith?
Jesus:
We must believe without asking for proof. We must not be doubting Thomases. If we believe in God, we will be paid back for all our trials and tribulations a thousandfold when we get to heaven.
Socrates:
You say we should believe whatever we are told, without investigating it or examining it; we should be gullible? If I did this, I should give my purse to every man on the street who promised to return it to me a thousandfold. I would be a fool to do as you say. And here you are not asking me to give mere money, but to dedicate the whole of my life to one undertaking and one purpose without ever considering the value of the undertaking. A thief demands my money by threatening my life. You demand my life by threatening me with torture and promising me paradise. I am not a meek and gullible fool to be led whither I am told by empty promises and threats.
Jesus:
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Socrates:
The meek are slaughtered and made slaves like the women and children of a defeated nation.
Jesus:
You must not question God!
Socrates:
I have never met this gentleman, and therefore can not question him. I am questioning you who claim to represent him, to determine whether or not you really do.
Jesus:
We must believe the Bible, the Scripture, the Word of God; by faith without expecting to be able to understand and without asking for proof.
Socrates:
It is impossible for a man to not choose. You are aware that there are several thousand religions in the world? If we believe by faith, we would have to accept them all; yet they are all different, and that would be impossible. It would be like believing that the world was round and flat at the same time. Certainly, you don't practice what you preach; for then you would have believed that the Jewish religion and the Old Testament were right and not started this new heretical religion of your own. Or yesterday when Athena's priests admonished you in the street to stop preaching your heresy; you would have believed in the Greek religion of the Olympic Gods because it was first and you should believe it by faith because they told you it was true.
Jesus:
By faith are we saved lest any man should boast.
Socrates:
Let me give you a specific example. Suppose the Oracle of Delphi told me a certain person was guilty of killing and raping my wife and that I should kill him or else he will kill me, fearing that I will discover his crime and kill him; and you tell me 'thou shalt not kill.' You tell me that I must believe by faith by whatever I am told. Following your injunction, I must kill the man because of my faith in the Oracle of Delphi and I must not kill the man because of my faith in Lord God. For I cannot both kill the man and not kill the man because they are contradictory. Therefore, I cannot believe in both the Oracle of Delphi and the Lord God. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe anything by faith alone. There is an intellectual choice that you and I and all men make, whether it is voluntary or not, as to what we believe. What would you rather do: make choice by thinking, discussing and considering all the aspects of the problem or by blindly denying that there is any choice necessary? This choice is the most important one in a man's life because the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" determines the whole course of a man's life. If a man is to direct his every move by his religion, as you advocate, then certainly, he must put a great deal of thought into his choice of religions. Let me tell you a parable: If you are to go from one city to another on some task that involves your whole life, would it not be wise to consider all the routes, whether some of them are frequented by robbers, whether there is not a closer or safer city to go to, or , indeed, whether there is any city there at all?
Jesus:
If you, honestly wish to know the truth about God, creation and the purpose of life, there is a very simple way to discover the truth. All you have to do is ask God to come into your heart. If you sincerely wish to know the truth about God, the holy spirit will come into your being and you will become one with God. At that moment, you will gain heavenly knowledge and peace; and when you die, you will go to heaven and live forever in happiness and contentment.
Socrates:
I long to know the truth. What is it exactly that I must do and say in order to gain this knowledge and wisdom? How do I address him?
Jesus:
Say, "Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth."
Socrates:
You say that by merely repeating this, I will gain knowledge about the purpose of life?
Jesus:
Yes. The Lord says seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered, knock and it shall be opened unto thee. God has promised to show the truth to anyone who asks.
Socrates:
Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth.
Jesus:
There, you see. Now thank God for giving you eternal life.
Socrates:
Nothing has happened. I know no more about the purpose of life than I did before.
Jesus:
Then you are not sincere. You did not really wish God to come into your heart and show you the truth. You did not have faith that he would come into your heart.
Socrates:
Truly I do wish to know the truth. I have dedicated my whole life to the study of philosophy and reason. I wish more than life itself to learn the purpose of life. It is an answer I have been seeking since I first saw the sun. Unless I find it, I shall still be seeking it on the day I die. Perhaps he did not hear me; shall I ask again louder?
Jesus:
You have failed to finder the answer because you do not have faith. If a man has faith the size of a mustard seed, he can move a mountain and everything that he wishes comes to pass.
Socrates:
That is impossible. Did any of the people who follow you here today ever have relatives or friends who were sick and dying? Certainly they did; and certainly if they were good Christian folk they wished that the relative or friend would not be sick or die, but rather be healthy and happy once again. Certainly no one will be so foolish as to say he never had a friend die. Certainly no one will be so callous as to say he never wished the friend to live. Therefore, it follows that no one Christian in all the centuries ever had faith in God; or else that God was lying.
Jesus:
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
Socrates:
I will present a parable to prove that there was never a Christian or a Jew who had faith; and to prove that God was lying when he promised to come into a man's heart and teach him the purpose of life. First, would you agree that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune?
Jesus:
Yes. Certainly.
Socrates:
And, have you not said that all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God?
Jesus:
Yes.
Socrates:
All Christians or Jews, who have faith, believe that they will go to Hell if they sin. Allow me to present this parable. Each Christian is like a man who stands at the top of a cliff: he knows that if he commits a sin, he will fall to his death, or worse, to eternal torment. You have said that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune. No matter how severe his earthly misfortunes or his desires, no man who was a faithful Christian, would commit a sin; that is, jump off the cliff to eternal torment. You have said that all men, including faithful Christians and Jews, are sinners. It follows that not one Christian or Jew since the beginning of time, ever really believed that he would go to hell. Because if he did believe it, he would not sin: he would not jump off the cliff if he believed that Hell and eternal torment awaited him below. All men do jump off the cliff; all men do sin. Therefore, not one in all these centuries really believed in you. It follows that God did not come into their hearts any more than he did into mine a few moments ago. Therefore God has no right to expect them to act in a Christian manner or to have faith in him. Therefore, God has no right to punish them or send them to Hell. Therefore your God is not just. Therefore your God is not God.
Jesus:
Look at the world around you. Doesn't that prove that God exists? See beautiful benevolent nature that makes you strong and healthy and provides you with the sun for warmth and the forest and field for food. Shouldn't you worship God for all that he has done for you?
Socrates:
I know that nature is all good and benevolent, but whose hailstones broke my window?
Jesus:
Simply because there is some evil in the world does not negate the good: You must thank God for that. God must exist because; where did the world come from if he did not create it?
Socrates:
It is not necessarily your God that created the world: There are thousands of other priests who claim that their God did it. Just because I do not have the answer, does not mean that I must accept yours without examining it. I could just as logically demand that you believe that Zeus created the world. Even if I agree that God created the world, that is the end of the definition of the qualities of God and we can't logically proceed from that to the assumption that the other aspects of your definition of God are correct.
Jesus:
Wait, do not leave! You must save your soul from eternal damnation. Accept God into your heart. I will not go, till you say aye to me.
Socrates:
Yes. These are only the idle thoughts of an old man. 'Tis certain you are right, since you have so many followers. And who am I, on dull-witted old man to put reason and philosophy above the voices of the multitude.
Jesus:
Thank God for giving you eternal life.
Socrates was gone.
Socrates Meets Jesus
by Prometheus
Socrates
Good morning, Jesus, I have heard much of your marvelous teachings. In my own modest way I am a philosopher here in Athens. I am told you have great wisdom and certainly that is indicated by the throng of admirers that follow you through the streets. If you have a few moments to spare, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me with the answers to some of the puzzling problems I have been wrestling with all my life
Jesus
I am as a fisher of men in my search for followers. I bring the truth of God to all men. Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered knock and it shall be open unto to thee.
Socrates
There is one basic question that has always been uppermost in my mind. Although it has always been an insurmountable obstacle to me in my search for the truth and meaning, I am sure that with your learning you will find it far to easy and think me a foolish old man. I have always longed to live honorably and nobly, but it seems that I have merely stumbled through life without even even knowing what was honorable or noble. With my limited understanding, it often seems to me that life, even with all its sound and fury, really signifies nothing. Please tell me: How should a man live; what is the purpose of life.
Jesus
To serve and worship God.
Socrates
Which God.
Jesus
There is only one god.
Socrates
Oh. You should live here in Athens. We have several to choose from.
Jesus
There is only one true God.
Socrates
Of course. And which one is the true God?
Jesus
The true god is Lord God.
Socrates
Yes. But who is Lord God? Or what is he?
Jesus
He is the infinity of wisdom, love, compassion, peace, and mercy. He is the creator of heaven and earth all things in the universe.
Socrates
Of all things?
Jesus
Yes-all things. He is omnipotent. He is master and controller and maker of all things. He is omnipresent-nothing can happen that he does not know beforehand.
Socrates
Did he create plagues, wars, death, suffering and evil.
Jesus
No. These things and all other evils and tragedies come from the Devil, the prince of darkness; or from man's weakness and evil nature. God is all goodness and free of evil; only good can come from God
Socrates
And who for gracious sakes is the devil? Surely he must be a god to be able to visit such powerful calamities on mankind: Yet you have just said there is only one God. Also you have said that all that exists comes from God: And now you say that only good comes from God and all evil comes from someone called the devil. These would seem to be contradictions. I am afraid that your religion is far too complex for this old head to fathom. Yet I will be an eager student and try hard to understand, if you will but help me. Please explain: who is the devil and how can all things come from God and yet not come from God?
Jesus:
The Devil is a fallen angel who is ambitious. He rebelled against God and wants to overthrow all his works.
Socrates:
What in Zeus' name is an angel?
Jesus:
An angel is an angel.
Socrates:
Of course, that's an identity. Socrates is Socrates. But, you see, it doesn't mean anything to me, inexperienced as I am in your religion. Although it's true as true can be, it doesn't relate to anything I can understand. Compare it to something I am familiar with.
Jesus:
An angel is an angel.
Socrates:
Please forgive me for my stolid ignorance. Understand that I am no authority such as you are. I have never seen an angel or heard of one. I am told that you had many strange visions when you wandered in the desert for 40 days without eating. Pray tell, what do they look like, these angels?
Jesus:
They have wings.
Socrates:
So do gnats. Could you be a little more specific?
Jesus:
They look like people except they have wings.
Socrates:
What else? They can fly, I assume
Jesus:
Yes, that's what the wings are for.
Socrates:
Of course--I might have known. You say they look like men. How are they different from men?
Jesus:
The are much better than men, and they never die.
Socrates:
How better than men?
Jesus:
More virtuous and more powerful. Much more powerful.
Socrates:
They are super-human, then.
Jesus:
Yes. Absolutely!
Socrates:
Then they are superhuman and they are immortal. We in Athens would call such beings gods.
Jesus:
No! God is more powerful than they.
Socrates:
So is Zeus to us more powerful than other Olympic gods, but the others are still by definition gods. How would you define the term God?
Jesus:
God is the creator of all. He is all power, knowledge, wisdom and the epitome of justice, mercy, compassion, goodness; and peace.
Socrates:
These qualities are, however, not necessarily consistent. It is not possible for a person to be just, peaceful and merciful, all in one instance or situation. If a person or a nation deserves punishment by the rule of justice, you must punish him or wage war on them, but this would be a violation of the rule of peace or mercy. No one being could have all these qualities because they contradict each other; they cannot exist together in the same person at the same time. It is as though a man had turned both left and right at the same corner at the same time, while still remaining whole and entire.
Jesus:
God works his wonders in mysterious ways.
Socrates:
It would seem that you have many gods just as we do in Athens, only you don't call them gods.
Jesus:
No! God is all powerful.
Socrates:
Then the only difference is the degree of power?
Jesus:
No. God is better and more virtuous than they. Sin is impossible for him.
Socrates:
What is sin?
Jesus:
It is an act of disobedience to God.
Socrates:
I see from this that God could not sin, because he could not be disobedient to himself. But since sin is impossible for him, it is no more a mark of achievement for him to be free of sin than it is a mark of achievement for a rock to be unable to move. It's merely a matter of definition. What do they do, these angles?
Jesus:
They do errands for God.
Socrates:
Why if God is all powerful, does he need others to do errands for him?
Jesus:
He likes it that way.
Socrates:
They are his slaves, then?
Jesus:
No, they serve him willingly.
Socrates:
What happens if they don't serve him willingly?
Jesus:
There were several angels led by Satan, the devil, who rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven to eternal torment and punishment.
Socrates:
What is heaven?
Jesus:
It is a wonderful place high in the sky. The streets are paved with gold. Everything is peaceful and beautiful there. God lives there and all who believe in God go there when they die. Men have eternal life there and are given wings and worship God and play harps in eternal bliss and happiness forever. It is the purpose and goal of all of man's life to go to heaven when he dies.
Socrates:
This sounds much like the accounts I have heard given by those who have eaten the lotus flower. If this was the purpose of life, could we not simply become intoxicated on wine or drugs and feel this way all the time, like the beggars and drunks we see on the other side of the city?
Jesus:
The Bible says thou shalt not partake of wine or strong drink.
Socrates:
If is the sole purpose of man's life to get to heaven, why does he not simply kill himself and go there?
Jesus:
Thou shalt no kill.
Socrates:
If God wanted man to go to heaven, why did he put man on earth in the first place? Why did he not simply put man in heaven from the beginning? I find it hard to believe that man with all his capabilities, desires, and complexities was created merely to sit and bow and scrape and worship. Certainly there is not, nor ever was, a human tyrant so vain and proud that he wanted his subjects merely to bow and scrape obsequiously and subserviently before him from dawn to dusk, let alone for all eternity. I certainly can understand why Satan wanted to rebel against such a static, regimented, oppressive, boring society. From what you have told me so far, I would have had to side with Satan in the rebellion, for although I consider myself a humble man as men go, I could not bow and scrape and sing praises all day to a being who threatened me with punishment and eternal torment if I did not.
Jesus:
The Lord thy God is a jealous god and thou shalt have no other gods before him.
Socrates:
Why did Satan rebel? Did he know that God was as powerful as you describe him to be and that he was certain to be defeated?
Jesus:
Satan rebelled because he was proud and wanted to rule heaven himself. He knew partly of God's great power (that it was greater than his own), but he wanted power so badly that he was willing to take any chance.
Socrates:
Satan was certainly very brave, then; to strive against a foe he could not defeat.
Jesus:
He was sinful because he was disobedient to the will of God.
Socrates:
It seems to me that the only difference between Satan and God is the degree of power.
Jesus:
God is perfect. He is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin.
Socrates:
Of course; by definition he is without sin because he could not be disobedient to himself. The only real difference between the two is the degree of power. Therefore, Satan was not wrong or sinful to rebel against God, he was only wrong to lose the rebellion. For if he had won, God would be the sinner: because God would have been disobedient to Satan who would be better than God or the other angels because he could not sin against himself, that is, be disobedient to himself, and he would have proven himself all powerful. If Satan had won, he would have become God, by your definition because he would have been all powerful and without sin. Who knows but that this didn't happen? From your description of God, I begin to suspect at this point that it did.
Jesus:
God is more than mere power and righteous lack of sin: he is infinite justice, mercy, peace and compassion, and all forgiving. Satan is vicious, selfish, destructive, and evil.
Socrates:
What happened to Satan after he was thrown out of heaven?
Jesus:
He was thrown into Hell by God where he was tormented and tortured for all eternity.
Socrates:
What is Hell and why did Satan stay there if it is so painful and unpleasant?
Jesus:
God locked him in Hell and he was not permitted to leave. God created Hell as a place to punish Satan and all men who do not have faith in God. It is an eternal burning inferno or torture, agony, and torment: all sinful men who do not ask God for forgiveness and have no faith in him go there for all eternity to be tortured by the devil.
Socrates:
If God is just or merciful, how can he do this to an enemy who fought him in battle. Why did God not simply pardon Satan after defeat as men often do to a captured nation after they defeat it? Mankind would seem in victory to be more merciful than God; for they do not treat the vanquished to such terrible torments for even a lifetime, let alone for all eternity. Why did God not show the qualities that you described as his justice, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness to Satan? Certainly God's warlike nature is in marked contrast with your definition of the term God as being peaceful, merciful and all forgiving.
Jesus:
God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
Socrates:
If Satan is locked in Hell, how can he bring plagues and torments on mankind and why does God allow it if he is all powerful and all good? If God is all powerful, how is it that he permits this evil Satan to survive? Why does he not destroy him? Although I begin to wonder, at this point, if the opposite course would not be better.
Jesus:
God allows Satan to be free to bring plagues and torments on mankind in order to punish man for his sin in the Garden of Eden.
Socrates:
What is the Garden of Eden?
Jesus:
When God created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, he put them in the Garden of Eden. When they were created, they were pure and without sin. That is how God created them. The Garden of Eden was a beautiful paradise, and it provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed. They did no have to work but merely pluck the fruit from the branches from lush trees. They were as innocent and untroubled as children and knew nothing about carnal fleshly love. They had each other for companions and adored and worshiped God who visited them once in a while.
Socrates:
Why did God create mankind?
Jesus:
He was lonely.
Socrates:
Why did he not simply create additional angels who were more his equal rather than this much lower form of life, Man? Could it be that he wanted obsequious slaves that he could look down on who would fear, reverence, and worship him?
Jesus:
Since he is our creator, we owe him our worship, reverence, and obedience.
Socrates:
Is the child of a criminal duty-bound to be obedient to his father, or does he have a right and obligation to judge for himself between right and wrong? What sin, what act of disobedience, did man commit in the Garden of Eden?
Jesus:
In the center of the Garden of Eden, God put the tree of knowledge. God told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the fruit of that tree. Satan went to the Garden disguised as a snake and told Eve that she would gain great knowledge if she ate the fruit. Satan said that God had told them not to eat the fruit because he was afraid that if they did they would become as great as he was. Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin.
Socrates:
Is knowledge evil that God would want to keep it from us? Why did God want to keep us from gaining knowledge? Did he want to keep us subservient slaves groveling under his feet? It seems to me that we owe Satan thanks and worship for his help. Satan seems rather like the Titan Prometheus, who in defiance of the orders of the gods brought man the knowledge of fire. For this service to man, Prometheus like Satan was subjected to torment and torture for all eternity. Certainly human life would be worth a great deal less that it is without love, fire and knowledge.
Jesus:
But Satan was lying to Eve, because we did not become as great as God by eating the fruit. He was lying to us merely because he wanted to destroy the work of God.
Socrates:
If God is all powerful, why did he allow Satan to come to the Garden and tempt Eve? If God did not want man to eat the fruit, why did he put the tree in the Garden in the first place? If God did not want man to make sexual love, why did he equip man with the organs necessary for it? If God did not want man to commit the original sin, why did he give man a desire for knowledge, experience, adventure and carnal love?
Jesus:
God put the tree in the Garden and allowed Satan to come there because he wanted to test mankind.
Socrates:
You have said that God was all knowing; that he knows everything that happens before it happens. Certainly God already knew how man would behave in any situation.
Jesus:
God gave man free will. It was just as possible for man to be virtuous and obey God as it was for man to be sinful and disobey the word of God.
Socrates:
Did God know that man would sin?
Jesus:
He knew that man would sin but he allowed man the free will to make his own choice.
Socrates:
Could God have created man so he could not sin? Could God have created man so that he would not have sinned in this particular situation?
Jesus:
Yes, since God is all powerful he could have done that, but he did not want men to be mere puppets; he wanted men to have free will.
Socrates:
Could God have created man with two heads and three legs or any other way if he wanted to?
Jesus:
God could have created man any way he wanted to.
Socrates:
Did God create man the way he intended to? Did God intend for man to have one head, two legs and to appear exactly as he does today?
Jesus:
Of course: God is perfect and all powerful; he could not make a mistake.
Socrates:
Then God did not make a mistake, but created man exactly as he intended to in every way?
Jesus:
Yes.
Socrates:
Then you and I were created exactly as God intended us to be? And Adam and Eve were created exactly as God intended them to be?
Jesus:
Yes. It is as I have said.
Socrates:
Did everything that is part of man come from God?
Jesus:
Yes: God is the master and controller and creator of all.
Socrates:
Did the devil or any other force create any part of man?
Jesus:
No. God is sole creator of all.
Socrates:
Then, if God created man's eyes, legs and mind, he also created man's desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus:
He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates:
Is man's nature a part of man, just as hands and feet are a part of man?
Jesus:
Yes. Man's nature is a part of man.
Socrates:
Who created man?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who created man's hands and feet?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who gave man two hands and two feet and created them exactly as they are today, and exactly as they were in the time of Adam and Eve?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who created man's nature?
Jesus:
God.
Socrates:
Who gave man his evil nature and weaknesses? God did, because everything that is a part of man came from God and God alone.
Jesus:
God gave man free will.
Socrates:
Who intended for men to have two hands, the devil?
Jesus:
No. God intended for man to have two hands.
Socrates:
Who intended for man to have weaknesses and an evil nature, the devil? No. God intended for man to have weaknesses and evil nature. If mankind is flawed or evil or weak, it is because God put the flaw or weakness there and intended it to be there. Let me tell you another parable. Have you ever seen the birds killing fish in the sea? Who put it into that bird to fang and kill that flying fish? Who's to doom, man, when the judge himself is dragged before the bar?
Jesus:
Man has free will. God did not force him to sin. He merely gave him the opportunity to be virtuous or sinful. Man would have been of no value to God if he had made him a mere puppet who could do nothing but good. He wanted to give man the opportunity to be good or evil according to his own merit and choice.
Socrates:
It is absurd for God to punish man after creating him. It is as though a Homer wrote an ode about a pig and then whipped and lashed the pages or cast them on an eternal unconsuming fire, because he disliked the qualities of the animal. Or that a master sculptor made a perfect statue of a pig and then lashed it for all eternity because he disliked the traits of the animal.
Jesus:
God did not create man with an evil nature that predetermined that he must sin.
Socrates:
Then who did?
Jesus:
God created man to be innocent and naturally good. God put man in a paradise, the Garden of Eden. He gave man free will and allowed Satan to come into the Garden of Eden to test mankind. God did not predetermine that man would sin.
Socrates:
But God created everything that went into this combination, situation or environment. When he created each of the elements or ingredients in the situation, he knew exactly how each would react with the others in any circumstance; because he was all knowing. He intended for each element to be exactly as it was because he was all-powerful and could not make a mistake. It is as though a scientist or a physician combined several ingredients into a medicine, which although harmless in themselves, when combined become a deadly poison; and then after administering it to a patient, disavowed any responsibility for his death. In just this way, God combined many things; an innocent man, a tree of knowledge, a beautiful garden and an angel.
Jesus:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Socrates:
It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
Jesus:
I warn you, God is not mocked. Do not talk in this way or you will be thrown into the fiery furnace where you will gnash your teeth, forever in torture and torment.
Socrates:
I thought our Olympic gods were vicious and unreasonable, but they seem veritable lambs of mercy and forbearance compared to this God of yours: who torments and tortures you for all eternity for doing what he forces you to do in the very making of you and your environment.
Jesus:
Oh, give thanks unto the Lord for he is good; For his mercy endureth forever.
Socrates:
Why, if he is a god of peace and mercy does he torment mankind and permit, even encourage and demand, bloodshed on earth; and permit, even demand Satan to tempt and torture mankind: since you said that nothing happens that he does not only know about, but will to happen? An all-powerful being who knows all and creates all, determines all, because he knows the way his creations will act.
Jesus:
God gave man free will because he did not want him to be a mere puppet. God did not want man to sin. God was very disappointed when man sinned.
Socrates:
God could not possibly be disappointed because he knew the nature of man and all else that he created. Since he is all powerful, he intended man to sin. Indeed he forced man to sin by creating man with certain desires and weaknesses.
Jesus:
What you say is blasphemy. God created the world and all the plants and animals for the pleasure of man. Look at the beautiful world around you. How can you say such terrible things about God after he has given so much to you?
Socrates:
I certainly couldn't believe this. How could a god who was so vicious, sadistic and hateful create a world with so much beauty? Even man with as much evil as there seems at times to be in him, still at other times exhibits incredible strength, self sacrifice and loyalty, and degrees of the conflicting qualities of mercy and justice. Your Lord God has none of these qualities. Certainly there never was a man however vile who could do to another man what you claim God does to those who do not respect him: torture them for all eternity. Any man, no matter how foully he has been mangled, tortured or murdered--like Priam whose whole clan was slain or Agamemnon who was murdered by his wife and her lover--would eventually relent after years or centuries of torturing his foe.
Jesus:
I am the way, the truth and the light. None come to the Father except by me. Believe in me and have eternal life in heaven; deny me and suffer eternal torture in Hell.
Socrates:
If I did accept your system, I would have to side with Satan against your God; even knowing that I would be tormented and tortured forever. The injustice and viciousness of your God is so appalling. I have heard terrible accounts of human sacrifices by savages on distant coasts; but certainly, even they never thought of torturing their victims for all eternity. I have heard frightening accounts of terrible monsters, Cyclops, gorgons and medusas, but these monsters are as tame and gentle as lambs, compared to those described in your book of Revelation. And you tell me of Lord God's peaceful, merciful and all-forgiving nature.
Jesus:
We are all the children of God. God is our father and does not want us to sin but must punish us when we do. He is just and merciful and only sends us, his children, to Hell, damnation and eternal torment when it is our own fault. When we sin and lust after sex like Adam and Eve, he has no choice but to punish us, by torturing us in eternal fire forever.
Socrates:
You say we are all the children of God. He is a veritable monster to harass his own children for having the eyes, legs and desires that he gave them. Be these juggling fiends no more believed, that palter with us in a double sense and keep the word of promise to our ear but to break it to our hope. I see not purpose, nor reason, nor truth, nor mercy, nor justice; naught but capricious naked power. Indeed, human beings, for all their caprice, selfishness and weaknesses, seem to have more of these qualities than your God. Your God is a demonic, sadistic, psychotic fiend.
Jesus:
We are merely human and cannot understand the infinite mysteries of God. It is our duty to be faithful and believe and follow him. It is not ours to reason why but to do and die.
Socrates:
Not reason? But why were we given minds? How are we to determine how to live and what is the purpose of life? What are we doing discussing this now? Why have you been preaching to people all of your life? Why have you risked your life in defiance of the orders of the Romans?
Jesus:
By faith are we saved, lest any man should boast.
Socrates:
Faith. What do you mean by faith?
Jesus:
We must believe without asking for proof. We must not be doubting Thomases. If we believe in God, we will be paid back for all our trials and tribulations a thousandfold when we get to heaven.
Socrates:
You say we should believe whatever we are told, without investigating it or examining it; we should be gullible? If I did this, I should give my purse to every man on the street who promised to return it to me a thousandfold. I would be a fool to do as you say. And here you are not asking me to give mere money, but to dedicate the whole of my life to one undertaking and one purpose without ever considering the value of the undertaking. A thief demands my money by threatening my life. You demand my life by threatening me with torture and promising me paradise. I am not a meek and gullible fool to be led whither I am told by empty promises and threats.
Jesus:
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Socrates:
The meek are slaughtered and made slaves like the women and children of a defeated nation.
Jesus:
You must not question God!
Socrates:
I have never met this gentleman, and therefore can not question him. I am questioning you who claim to represent him, to determine whether or not you really do.
Jesus:
We must believe the Bible, the Scripture, the Word of God; by faith without expecting to be able to understand and without asking for proof.
Socrates:
It is impossible for a man to not choose. You are aware that there are several thousand religions in the world? If we believe by faith, we would have to accept them all; yet they are all different, and that would be impossible. It would be like believing that the world was round and flat at the same time. Certainly, you don't practice what you preach; for then you would have believed that the Jewish religion and the Old Testament were right and not started this new heretical religion of your own. Or yesterday when Athena's priests admonished you in the street to stop preaching your heresy; you would have believed in the Greek religion of the Olympic Gods because it was first and you should believe it by faith because they told you it was true.
Jesus:
By faith are we saved lest any man should boast.
Socrates:
Let me give you a specific example. Suppose the Oracle of Delphi told me a certain person was guilty of killing and raping my wife and that I should kill him or else he will kill me, fearing that I will discover his crime and kill him; and you tell me 'thou shalt not kill.' You tell me that I must believe by faith by whatever I am told. Following your injunction, I must kill the man because of my faith in the Oracle of Delphi and I must not kill the man because of my faith in Lord God. For I cannot both kill the man and not kill the man because they are contradictory. Therefore, I cannot believe in both the Oracle of Delphi and the Lord God. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe anything by faith alone. There is an intellectual choice that you and I and all men make, whether it is voluntary or not, as to what we believe. What would you rather do: make choice by thinking, discussing and considering all the aspects of the problem or by blindly denying that there is any choice necessary? This choice is the most important one in a man's life because the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" determines the whole course of a man's life. If a man is to direct his every move by his religion, as you advocate, then certainly, he must put a great deal of thought into his choice of religions. Let me tell you a parable: If you are to go from one city to another on some task that involves your whole life, would it not be wise to consider all the routes, whether some of them are frequented by robbers, whether there is not a closer or safer city to go to, or , indeed, whether there is any city there at all?
Jesus:
If you, honestly wish to know the truth about God, creation and the purpose of life, there is a very simple way to discover the truth. All you have to do is ask God to come into your heart. If you sincerely wish to know the truth about God, the holy spirit will come into your being and you will become one with God. At that moment, you will gain heavenly knowledge and peace; and when you die, you will go to heaven and live forever in happiness and contentment.
Socrates:
I long to know the truth. What is it exactly that I must do and say in order to gain this knowledge and wisdom? How do I address him?
Jesus:
Say, "Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth."
Socrates:
You say that by merely repeating this, I will gain knowledge about the purpose of life?
Jesus:
Yes. The Lord says seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered, knock and it shall be opened unto thee. God has promised to show the truth to anyone who asks.
Socrates:
Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth.
Jesus:
There, you see. Now thank God for giving you eternal life.
Socrates:
Nothing has happened. I know no more about the purpose of life than I did before.
Jesus:
Then you are not sincere. You did not really wish God to come into your heart and show you the truth. You did not have faith that he would come into your heart.
Socrates:
Truly I do wish to know the truth. I have dedicated my whole life to the study of philosophy and reason. I wish more than life itself to learn the purpose of life. It is an answer I have been seeking since I first saw the sun. Unless I find it, I shall still be seeking it on the day I die. Perhaps he did not hear me; shall I ask again louder?
Jesus:
You have failed to finder the answer because you do not have faith. If a man has faith the size of a mustard seed, he can move a mountain and everything that he wishes comes to pass.
Socrates:
That is impossible. Did any of the people who follow you here today ever have relatives or friends who were sick and dying? Certainly they did; and certainly if they were good Christian folk they wished that the relative or friend would not be sick or die, but rather be healthy and happy once again. Certainly no one will be so foolish as to say he never had a friend die. Certainly no one will be so callous as to say he never wished the friend to live. Therefore, it follows that no one Christian in all the centuries ever had faith in God; or else that God was lying.
Jesus:
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
Socrates:
I will present a parable to prove that there was never a Christian or a Jew who had faith; and to prove that God was lying when he promised to come into a man's heart and teach him the purpose of life. First, would you agree that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune?
Jesus:
Yes. Certainly.
Socrates:
And, have you not said that all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God?
Jesus:
Yes.
Socrates:
All Christians or Jews, who have faith, believe that they will go to Hell if they sin. Allow me to present this parable. Each Christian is like a man who stands at the top of a cliff: he knows that if he commits a sin, he will fall to his death, or worse, to eternal torment. You have said that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune. No matter how severe his earthly misfortunes or his desires, no man who was a faithful Christian, would commit a sin; that is, jump off the cliff to eternal torment. You have said that all men, including faithful Christians and Jews, are sinners. It follows that not one Christian or Jew since the beginning of time, ever really believed that he would go to hell. Because if he did believe it, he would not sin: he would not jump off the cliff if he believed that Hell and eternal torment awaited him below. All men do jump off the cliff; all men do sin. Therefore, not one in all these centuries really believed in you. It follows that God did not come into their hearts any more than he did into mine a few moments ago. Therefore God has no right to expect them to act in a Christian manner or to have faith in him. Therefore, God has no right to punish them or send them to Hell. Therefore your God is not just. Therefore your God is not God.
Jesus:
Look at the world around you. Doesn't that prove that God exists? See beautiful benevolent nature that makes you strong and healthy and provides you with the sun for warmth and the forest and field for food. Shouldn't you worship God for all that he has done for you?
Socrates:
I know that nature is all good and benevolent, but whose hailstones broke my window?
Jesus:
Simply because there is some evil in the world does not negate the good: You must thank God for that. God must exist because; where did the world come from if he did not create it?
Socrates:
It is not necessarily your God that created the world: There are thousands of other priests who claim that their God did it. Just because I do not have the answer, does not mean that I must accept yours without examining it. I could just as logically demand that you believe that Zeus created the world. Even if I agree that God created the world, that is the end of the definition of the qualities of God and we can't logically proceed from that to the assumption that the other aspects of your definition of God are correct.
Jesus:
Wait, do not leave! You must save your soul from eternal damnation. Accept God into your heart. I will not go, till you say aye to me.
Socrates:
Yes. These are only the idle thoughts of an old man. 'Tis certain you are right, since you have so many followers. And who am I, on dull-witted old man to put reason and philosophy above the voices of the multitude.
Jesus:
Thank God for giving you eternal life.
Socrates was gone.
10.05.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
10.04.2009
Honesty is the best policy.....
From DFA's Aunt:
Hi everyone,
I just got back from parent’s weekend with Julie (younger cousin in a private college). It was wonderful!
I teased her yesterday that all we did was pray and eat!
It was great. They had mass each day which is the most inspirational mass I have ever been at.
If you can imagine 2000 college students singing and responding with enthusiasm for Christ!!!
They had a praise and worship celebration last night which is singing
praise songs in
the dimly
lit
gym
with 2000 students and prayers
for 2 hours!
We also visited the 24 hour Eucharistic chapel and it is always busy with people!
They have a tomb with several aborted babies and a perpetual flame. I kept crying with happiness because it was all so moving and spiritual.
WTF
Every time I step on her campus I feel the Holy Spirit!
I wish everyone could visit her college!
It is amazing how alive our faith is with people who pray.
Wow!
God bless you all
and I pray your faith is alive
and on a continual increase!
See you soon!
Love,
sharon
---------------
MY EMAIL RESPONSE:
Dear Aunt Sharon,
I am glad that you and Julie had a great time visiting! Julie's school reminds me of my old Saint Francis University in Loretto, PA; which was a pretty tight knitt community. It sounds like she's found a great place to learn and relate! I'm not religious; however, I am glad that things are working out!
I know you asked me a question in an email earlier. You asked me "who is Kyle?" (That I moved from Milwaukee to Lake Elsinore with.)
He is actually my boyfriend. We have been together for almost 3 years. I didn't know if I should tell you, since I feel we lead different paths in life regarding happiness. Yet, I am always a fan of honesty... so I thought I would let you know.
I appreciate your emails, and I hope that everything is still going well for you and the family.
Sincerely,
David
262-442-:):)
(feel free to call whenever!)
Hi everyone,
I just got back from parent’s weekend with Julie (younger cousin in a private college). It was wonderful!
I teased her yesterday that all we did was pray and eat!
It was great. They had mass each day which is the most inspirational mass I have ever been at.
If you can imagine 2000 college students singing and responding with enthusiasm for Christ!!!
They had a praise and worship celebration last night which is singing
praise songs in
the dimly
lit
gym
with 2000 students and prayers
for 2 hours!
We also visited the 24 hour Eucharistic chapel and it is always busy with people!
They have a tomb with several aborted babies and a perpetual flame. I kept crying with happiness because it was all so moving and spiritual.
WTF
Every time I step on her campus I feel the Holy Spirit!
I wish everyone could visit her college!
It is amazing how alive our faith is with people who pray.
Wow!
God bless you all
and I pray your faith is alive
and on a continual increase!
See you soon!
Love,
sharon
---------------
MY EMAIL RESPONSE:
Dear Aunt Sharon,
I am glad that you and Julie had a great time visiting! Julie's school reminds me of my old Saint Francis University in Loretto, PA; which was a pretty tight knitt community. It sounds like she's found a great place to learn and relate! I'm not religious; however, I am glad that things are working out!
I know you asked me a question in an email earlier. You asked me "who is Kyle?" (That I moved from Milwaukee to Lake Elsinore with.)
He is actually my boyfriend. We have been together for almost 3 years. I didn't know if I should tell you, since I feel we lead different paths in life regarding happiness. Yet, I am always a fan of honesty... so I thought I would let you know.
I appreciate your emails, and I hope that everything is still going well for you and the family.
Sincerely,
David
262-442-:):)
(feel free to call whenever!)
9.16.2009
This message has been sent using the picture and Video service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
9.15.2009
9.14.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
9.10.2009
Football and Stupidity collide.... big surprise
The owner is such a dumb moron...oh and he can vote!
9.09.2009
Talk Radio Today: How do ratings work?
"Since right-wing populism has at its heart an "anti-elitist" distrust of expertise, talk radio offers the purest example of the Three Great Premises at work.
A host is not judged a success by his command of the issues, but purely by whether what he says moves the ratings needle.
*First Great Premise: Any theory is valid if it moves units.
-If the needle moves enough, then the host is adjudged an expert.
*Second Great Premise: Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough
And if the host seems to argue passionately enough, then what he is saying is judged to be true simply beause of how many people are listening to him say it.
*Third Great Premise: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."
- Charles P. Pierce,Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
EXAMPLE of Bill O'Reilly... who behaves the same way on the radio as he does on television:
A host is not judged a success by his command of the issues, but purely by whether what he says moves the ratings needle.
*First Great Premise: Any theory is valid if it moves units.
-If the needle moves enough, then the host is adjudged an expert.
*Second Great Premise: Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough
And if the host seems to argue passionately enough, then what he is saying is judged to be true simply beause of how many people are listening to him say it.
*Third Great Premise: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."
- Charles P. Pierce,Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
EXAMPLE of Bill O'Reilly... who behaves the same way on the radio as he does on television:
9.07.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime® 6.5 or higher is required.
9.06.2009
8.15.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime® 6.5 or higher is required.
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime® 6.5 or higher is required.
8.10.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime® 6.5 or higher is required.
8.09.2009
8.06.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime® 6.5 or higher is required.
7.30.2009
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
7.29.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
7.28.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
7.27.2009
This message has been sent using the picture and Video service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
7.20.2009
California Move
Hey people.
I'm moving to California with Kyle on the 28th (monday)
Wish us luck?
k thanks
DFA
I'm moving to California with Kyle on the 28th (monday)
Wish us luck?
k thanks
DFA
6.22.2009
6.11.2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
6.08.2009
5.26.2009
Constitutionality of Proposition 8
(or lack thereof)
***ATTENTION***This is about a 10-20 min. read, but If you TRULY care about the issue, regardless of your position, then take the time to read some real legal, psychological, and social data. If you cannot take the time to read the whole article, then your comments deserve the same amount of attention that you have given to my article***
There are many organizations and individuals in the United States who argue that same-sex marriages should be prohibited at both the state and national level. Indeed, eight states have already signed gay marriage bans into their constitutions. Additionally, eighteen states have voted to add language to their constitutions banning same-sex unions. Many opponents of same-sex marriage incorporate false preconceived notions, singular religious convictions, and inaccurate interpretations of, or utter disregard for, the U.S. Constitution in order to support their position against homosexuals. Their reasoning, however, does not endure when tested on a constitutional basis. Hence, it is the purpose of this report to systematically prove that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The basis for this argument comes from the United States Constitution itself. More specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses, as well as the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses, combine to make a resounding argument in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Moreover, a large portion of support for same-sex marriage is accumulated through the United States Supreme Court within its rulings, written opinions, and various constitutionality tests. Investigating this issue reveals the shocking reality that homosexuals’ fight for equal rights closely resembles that of the African-American civil rights movement in the United States.
Background Information
Crucial facts upon which many of the arguments found in this paper are based originate from the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Thus commencement requires the citation of beliefs held by the American Psychological Association in regard to homosexuality. The American Psychological Association is a “scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States.” With over 150,000 members, the APA is the largest association of psychologists in the world (APA).
The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as, “an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person.” Sexual orientation, according to the APA, is not a black and white issue; rather, it exists along “a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.” The American Psychological Association strongly affirms that, “human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.” Furthermore, a person’s sexual orientation transpires, for most people, in “early adolescence” sans any previous sexual experiences. Notably, the APA states that “although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”
Pressures from religious organizations, or family members, have caused many homosexuals to seek treatment. Some search for a cure to their feelings because part of society deems their feelings to be unnatural and unacceptable. However, “the reality is that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder, or an emotional problem. It does not require treatment and is not changeable” (APA).
Objective research taken from the past thirty-five years shows that homosexuality is not “associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.” The reason that homosexuality was previously believed to be a mental illness was due to mental health professionals and society using, and accepting, “biased information.” Prior research studies of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals “involved only those in therapy,” hence skewing the results of the research. When researchers finally looked at “data about people who were not in therapy,” the concept that homosexuality was a mental disease was swiftly found to be incorrect (APA).
Homosexuality was removed from the official manual that contains mental and emotional disorders back in 1973 after the American Psychiatric Association validated the “importance of new, better designed research.” For more than twenty-five years now, the APA, along with other psychological associations, has strongly “urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation” (APA).
In regard to parenting, studies have been conducted comparing groups of children who were brought-up by homosexual parents against those raised by heterosexual parents. These studies find “no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas.” Most notably, the children’s “intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends” were all unaffected by the sex or sexual orientation of those who raised them. The APA strongly refutes any beliefs that a parent’s sexual orientation can dictate that of his or her children.
Tying into the concept of homosexual parenting, the American Psychological Association acknowledges that the belief that “gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children” is a biased and factually unsupported myth that is inherently incorrect. The APA finds no evidence to support that this shocking notion is a reality of any sort.
The APA also notes the importance of homosexuals being able to “come out” and be honest with themselves and others. The ability for a homosexual to do this is “important to their mental health.” Moreover, the “process of identity development for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals called ‘coming out,’ has been found to be strongly related to psychological adjustment.” Being able to be honest with themselves and those important in their lives is essential to the betterment of a homosexual’s “mental health and…self-esteem” (APA).
Higher levels of individually-held prejudices towards homosexuals have a directly proportional relationship to a person’s lack of exposure and acquaintanceship to homosexuals. Studies show that persons who have “the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are those who know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual persons well – often as a friend or co-worker.” Consequently, psychologists affirm that pessimistic views in regard to homosexuals as a group are “prejudices that are not grounded in actual experiences,” rather these feelings and beliefs are, “based on stereotypes and prejudice” (APA). People are often afraid of, or opposed to, that which they do no know or fully comprehend.
Because of lack of correct information, and dissemination of inaccurate and biased data about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) reports that homosexuals tend to experience “high rates of discrimination and harassment” from an early age (SIECUS). Because homosexuals are a minority population, and since most schools do not protect them against discrimination and harassment, homosexuals are more susceptible to an assortment of detrimental behaviors, “including skipping school and attempting suicide.” Homophobic comments and persecution coupled with a lack of protection at school and negative messages from uninformed peers are fairly common in the life a student who happens to be homosexual (SIECUS).
Statistically, over “twice as many lesbian, gay, and bisexual students (19%) report being threatened or injured with a weapon at their public high school” during the school year than heterosexual attendees (8%). As a result, homosexual students are “twice as likely (16%) to have skipped school in the last month for safety concerns as other students (8%).” Sadly, attempted suicide rates for homosexual students are “four times higher” with 33% having attempted to commit suicide within the past twelve months as compared to only 9% of those who identify as heterosexual students (SIECUS).
Discrimination at schools for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals can be through both words and actions. Homosexual students “often hear homophobic remarks from both students and staff.” Often, these students are “verbally, physically, and sexually harassed” solely because of their sexual orientation. A staggering 92% of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students in both middle school and high school report that they “frequently or often hear homophobic remarks, such as ‘faggot,’ ‘dyke,’ or the expression ‘that’s so gay’ from their peers.” On top of this, close to one in five of these students also heard homophobic comments from faculty or staff at their school (SIECUS).
Harassment Data (Cannot Make Tables Show Up On Here)
Percent of middle and high school aged homosexuals that say they are verbally harassed at school including name calling or threats, because of their sexual orientation. 84%
Percentage of these students that report having been sexually harassed over the past school year, including sexual remarks or touching, because of their sexual orientation. 65%
Percentage who report having been physically harassed, including being shoved or pushed at school, because of their sexual orientation. 39%
Percentage of homosexual students in middle and high schools say they feel unsafe at school. 64%
Percentage of homosexual high school seniors who have experienced higher frequencies of verbal harassment at school that do not plan to attend college. 13%
Percentage of homosexual seniors who report that they have never or rarely experienced verbal abuse who do not plan to attend college. 7%
(Poll data taken from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States)
Adding to these numbers are state laws and policies that also contribute the intolerance expressed toward homosexuals. In fact, most state’s policies do no include protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) students. Currently only eight states and the District of Columbia have legal protections for students based on their sexual orientation. Amazingly, six states outright ban “advocacy of homosexuality” at school. As a result, over 75% of students in America go to schools in states where sexual orientation is not a protected class under the law as religion, race and national origin are under federal law. On top of this, several states including Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah do not allow teachers to portray homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Shockingly, in a few of these states students were told that homosexual behavior was a criminal offense notwithstanding the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in which such laws were deemed to be unconstitutional (SIECUS).
Furthermore, with all of these obstacles facing young homosexual students, these young kids are essentially ignored or discriminated against in Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs at their schools. Most of these programs “omit sexual orientation completely or show clear bias against homosexuality.” Some lessons go so far as to equate “homosexuality with clearly immoral and illegal behavior, such as incest … pedophilia … and adult-child sex;” all of which goes directly against the findings of the APA (SIECUS).
Finally, the distressing story of the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 further solidifies the fact that the homosexuals’ struggle for equal rights today echoes of the battle that African-Americans faced. Matthew was a twenty-one year Wyoming old college student who was beaten to death solely because of his homosexuality. Matthew’s parents described him as "...an optimistic and accepting young man ...[who]... had a special gift of relating to almost everyone. He was the type of person that was very approachable and always looked to new challenges. Matthew had a great passion for equality and always stood up for the acceptance of people's differences." Sadly, the intolerance of two men, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, would be the cause of the abrupt end to Matthew Shepard’s life (Matthew Shepard Foundation).
The attack occurred when Shepard went out to a bar; it was there that he met McKinney and Henderson. The two posed as gay men and convinced Shepard to let them give him a ride home. After leaving the bar, Shepard was tortured, pistol whipped, tied to a fence in a remote area in the countryside, and left to die. Shepard was found eighteen hours later by a passerby, still tied to the fence. He was still alive, but in a coma. Matthew had severe brain stem damage and a fracture that ran from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He was beaten so severely that doctors found his injuries to be inoperable. Matthew Shepard was pronounced dead at 12:53 a.m. on October 12, 1998 at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins (Matthew Shepard Foundation).
Taken as a whole, these true stories and information combine to paint a vivid picture of discrimination toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender students. Harassment at school from fellow students and even faculty and staff can leave a lasting imprint on the lives of a child. The data revealed by these polls shows that discrimination against homosexuals is widespread and unchecked in the public school system. Students are taught that homosexuality is immoral and the concept prevails. Clearly, in some people the hatred for homosexuals grows so strongly that they are moved to take such actions as seen in the story of Matthew Shepard. With attitudes like these toward homosexuals, and lack of protection for students who identify as gay, these children end up being raised in an unforgiving world. Much like the lives of African-Americans in past decades (and arguably today), homosexuals have to struggle for acceptance. The environment that young homosexual kids face at school, coupled with state and national laws that discriminate against adults of non-heterosexual orientation, create very dark and scary world for them to live in. The outlook for their future may seem bleak.
In total, the facts provided by the American Psychologists Association and the data from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States combine to show the reader the many unwarranted hardships experienced by homosexuals in this country. The United States Constitution has the provisions and clauses necessary to protect homosexuals, if only the legislators and justices would work to do so. Much like the times of the civil rights movements for African-Americans, homosexuals are struggling for recognition and equal protection under the law. Next, by taking a look at the United States Constitution, one will see how same-sex marriage bans are indeed violating the rights of same-sex couples. The information you just read in regard to discrimination against homosexuals creates a valid and vivid description of why these bans are being put in place.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection & Due Process
Specific language of the United States Constitution to be discussed in the section: The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that, “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This concept can also be found in the Fifth Amendment with very similar wording, in which it reads, “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The concept of Equal Protection has been elucidated by several Supreme Court cases which can be used to address the issue of same-sex marriage. The enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment is important in regard to the state side of the same-sex marriage debate as it protects the people’s rights from being violated by the state and its leaders. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, states can not deprive people of equal protection of the laws. These constitutional facts, together with scientific facts from the American Psychologists Association, combine to create a remarkable case in favor of same-sex marriage.
One of the first cases ever to involve equal protection was that of Strauder v. West Virgina. In this case, Strauder, an African-American man was convicted of murder by an all-white jury. At this time, West Virginia did not allow African-Americans to serve on a jury. Strauder was convicted of murder, but appealed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause saying that West Virginia’s exclusionary policy in jury selection was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution (Oyez.org).
Justice William Strong gave the Supreme Court’s majority opinion. The Court held that to deny citizen involvement in the administration of justice exclusively on racial grounds "is practically a brand upon them, affixed by law; an assertion of their inferiority, and a stimulant to that race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to individuals of the race that equal justice which the law aims to secure to all others” (Findlaw.com).
Indeed, the current issue of same-sex marriage can be said to parallel that of racist attitudes of the past. To deny a citizen the ability to get married solely on their sexual orientation, an immutable characteristic akin to race, is, as Justice Strong said, putting a brand on homosexuals, declaring inferiority, and a cause to further intolerance. Indeed, same-sex marriage bans can, and do, undermine the goal of granting equal justice to everyone living in this nation.
Another case worth noting is that of Plessy v. Ferguson. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana Jim Crow law that forced the segregation of whites and African-Americans on the railroads by color-divided railroad cars was, in fact, constitutional. The Court through Justice Henry Brown held that the equal protection clause was created to uphold equality in civil rights and not in social arrangements. Hence, the separate but equal law was deemed reasonable because of “the established usages, customs and traditions of the people” (Katsh 35).
This case was to be later overturned, but of interest here is the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan. In his palpable expression of dissent, Harlan wrote “Everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons…In the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” He concluded by saying that, “arbitrary separation” was “a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution” (Findlaw.com).
Once again the parallels can be drawn between the struggle for equality for African-Americans in the United States, and that of the discrimination against homosexuals that we see today. Justice Brown claimed that equal protection was only for upholding equality in civil rights, but not social arrangements. Additionally, he relied on the “customs and traditions of the people” to back up his point. Harlan called Brown out on this blatant misinterpretation of the state law and his disregard for the language and intent of the United States Constitution (Findlaw.com).
Clearly, customs and traditions of the past have been overruled and declared incorrect by science, judges, and evolving standards of society. The situation in Plessy v. Ferguson parallels the situation that homosexuals face today in trying to attain marriage licenses and the rights allotted to married couples. The creation of laws to specifically ban same-sex marriages is, indeed, a subjective separation, similar to racism, which does not align with the goals of civil freedom and equality recognized in our constitution.
The landmark case that essentially overturned Plessy v. Ferguson was Brown v. Board of Education. In this case, the parents of an African American child tried to enroll her in an all-white school. They were rejected, but this attempt, and consequential rejection, gave them standing in court. Of the four African-American schools that were involved in this case, three were found to be substandard when compared to their white counterparts. The Court also looked beyond the physical and tangible concerns when comparing the schools. Psychological reports found that segregation of white and minority children, especially when sanctioned by law, gave the minority children a sense of inferiority which negatively affected their motivation to learn (Eskridge 120).
Marriage bans against homosexuals are, for all intents and purposes, a separate but equal stance by those who push for and pass such laws. African-Americans were allowed to attend schools and receive an education during the times of separate but equal, but they did not receive equal treatment or equal educational benefits, and the resulting psychological harm separate but equal caused was unwarranted.
For over thirty-five years the American Psychological Association has recognized that homosexuality is natural and unchangeable. Yet our laws do not allow for homosexual marriages. Thus, once again, we run the unreasonable and unjust course that separate but equal did in the educational systems. Sure, homosexual relationships are allowed for, but the quality of benefits allowed and psychological hurt placed on an individual solely because of this immutable characteristic, just like skin color in Brown v. Board, are factors that weigh in heavily. Three of the four African American schools in Brown v. Board of Education were found to be inferior to their white counterparts by trial courts. Yet, plaintiffs in this case didn’t just want the courts to order the schools to be equal, they wanted to challenge the holdings in Plessy v. Fergusson that separate but equal was constitutional. Similarly, the rights allotted to homosexuals in regard to marriage are nonexistent or limited in many states. Homosexuals, as human beings under the same constitution, should not be treated as separate citizens of a lower class; yet, that is what we see today. “Separate,” as Justice Earl Warren wrote, “is inherently unequal” (Eskridge 121).
Turning to marriage-related cases now, we look at the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. In this 1958 case, an African-American woman and a white man were married in the District of Columbia. Upon returning to Virginia, the couple was charged with being in violation of the state’s anti-miscegenation statute which prohibited inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and were given one year jail sentences or a choice to leave Virginia for twenty-five years. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the Virginia law banning inter-racial marriage was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was unanimous (Wardle 39).
In the written opinion, the Court held that divisions such as this that were based on race were “odious to free people” and subject to “rigid scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause. Overall, the Court ruled that the Virginia law had no legitimate purpose other than “invidious racial discrimination.” The state argued that the law should be considered constitutional as it was applied to both African-American and white people equally, but the Supreme Court declared that racial cataloging was not subject to a rational purpose test (Wardle 169).
In the written opinion, the Court also wrote that marriage “is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.” The denial of this fundamental freedom, the Court said, was “as unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statuettes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” The Court then concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Overall, there was no purpose, separate from racial discrimination, which could justify this statute. The law was only in place to maintain white supremacy (Wardle 170).
The case of Loving v. Virginia is a perfect example of historically-based discrimination in marriage. The Court realized that there was not a legitimate reason to prohibit inter-racial marriage and that the law was, in fact, just another form of racism that violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Once again, the gay marriage mirrors that of discrimination against African-Americans. The state of Virginia tried to argue that since the law applied to both white and black citizens, that it was not violating any constitutional regulations. The state was clearly overlooking the fact that inter-racial love could exist, and should be accepted, rather than be disallowed on racially prejudiced grounds.
Similarly, today one must question the barring of same-sex marriages. Just as white people could not marry black persons, now there are laws trying to assure that men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. Once again, the law does not take into account the fact that homosexuality, like race is an immutable characteristic recognized by the American Psychological Association. The Loving’s could not help that they loved each other, and they could not help the fact that they were born of two different skin tones. Similarly, homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation or feelings of love for members of the same sex.
Turning to actual same-sex marriage cases, now we consider the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Heath which was decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In this case seven same-sex couples unsuccessfully applied for marriage licenses in Massachusetts. After being denied the right to marry, they filed suit against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which was in charge of making and enforcing marriage rules in the state. The plaintiffs argued that they were denied equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution (Hull 167).
Notably, the plaintiffs did challenge under the State’s constitution, rather than the United States Constitution. Several reasons can be amassed to explain this course of action. For one, the language of the Massachusetts Constitution was slightly broader than that of the U.S. Constitution in regard to equal protection. Secondly, the decisions could not be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court because states are given the right to interpret their own constitutions so long as they do not give less protection than that of the U.S. Constitution, directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution, or contravene previous Supreme Court rulings (Hull 204).
The decision to challenge the law at only the state level was, for the purpose of the pro-same-sex marriage crowd, a correctly calculated choice. Due to the fact that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are hot button issues, the Supreme Court would have to tackle the issue while keeping in mind current state laws, bans, societal attitudes, and evolving standards of decency. To lose at the Supreme Court level would be analogous to digging an incredibly deep hole out of which the movement would have then to try to climb. The American Psychologists Association, as noted previously, sees that the vast majority of those who do not know any homosexuals do not have opinions that are “grounded in actual experiences.” (APA). Much like the struggles of African-Americans for equal rights, homosexuals will have to gain acceptance by starting small and showing society that preconceived notions and prejudices are not correct. Thus, the decision to start the battle at the state level was a wise one.
The majority decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health found that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall declared that the state could not “deny the protections, benefits and obligation conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” Additionally, the court said that the constitution of Massachusetts “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals” and “forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” Marshall continued by stating that the state “had no constitutionally adequate reason” to block marriage rights to same-sex couples. Notably, the Court determined that the State did not have a rational basis for its denial of marriage for same-sex couples on the grounds of equal protection and due process. Marriage, the court said, has significant social and tangible benefits.
Essentially, the state of Massachusetts was no longer allowed to deny homosexuals the same rights given to heterosexual couples. Liberties and equalities found in the constitution all protect citizen’s freedoms from unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life. Whether or not we marry, and to whom we choose to marry, are amongst the most basic of liberty rights in the United States (Findlaw.com). The Court’s rhetoric in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health mirrors that of previous cases discussed in the report. The Massachusetts Supreme Court did, in fact, recognize that homosexuals were being treated as second class citizens and thus denied basic rights that are provided for through the United States Constitution to all of its people; not just heterosexuals.
In this case the state tried to argue, on a rational basis level, that the ban on homosexual marriages was legitimate for three reasons. First, they claimed that marriage was created for the sake of procreation and advancement of the species. Second, children, they asserted, would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to occur. Finally, the government maintained that by banning same-sex marriages they were protecting state and private financial resources (Findlaw.com).
In response to these statements, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that none of these arguments passed the rational basis test. Procreation, and thus fertility, the court said, was not a prerequisite for marriage, nor grounds for divorce. Commitment, on the other hand, was the centerpiece to marriage, not children. Clearly, we could see the outrage that would arise from heterosexual couples if they were not allowed to marry because one or both of the partners were found to be sterile. Additionally, it is extremely hard to foresee that the Supreme Court would ever find a law constitutional that required married couples to have children (Eskridge 96).
The welfare of children, the Court said, was not promoted by prohibiting same-sex marriages; nor was child welfare harmed by allowing members of the same-sex to get married. This assessment goes hand in hand with observations by the American Psychologist Association which stated that, “there are no developmental differences between the two groups of children (raised by heterosexual versus homosexual parents) in four critical areas” including, “intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends” (APA). The APA also declares that parental sexual orientation has no effect on that of the child. Hence, this claim by the state was also found to be erroneous.
In regard to the state’s claim to protecting state and private financial resources, the Court also found this to be a senseless assertion. No studies showed that same-sex couples were more or less dependent on the government. Thus, they would not necessarily be gaining or losing more than any other heterosexual married couple once they were allowed to marry. Additionally, the court pointed out, most benefits were conditioned on showing a need for dependence on the government and not just given out arbitrarily (Eskridge 98).
The First Amendment: Establishment Clause & Free Exercise Clause
Thus far this report has attempted to show the reader that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution via provisions found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Intertwined throughout have been momentous facts provided by the American Psychologists Association and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. These facts have shown that homosexuality is a normal phenomenon, as unchangeable as one’s skin pigmentation. From all of this, one can gather that misinformation, outright lies, and discrimination against homosexuals are what have ultimately produced a nation in which legislators and leaders have deemed it acceptable for openly discriminatory legislation to exist.
In looking to determine just who in the United States is pushing the hardest for same-sex marriage bans we find that the answer comes in the form of religious leaders and their organizations. The frontrunner in the anti-homosexual movement is the Catholic Church. In response to Massachusetts’ allowance for same-sex marriage, the state’s four bishops have “mounted an unprecedented campaign to sway the votes of Catholic politicians” and the minds of religious people. In June 2003, during the landmark case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Heath, the bishops’ first statement denouncing same-sex marriage was released. Within a week of the civil rights victory for same-sex couples, the bishops “issued a joint statement opposing the historic ruling, which was either read from the pulpit or distributed at mass across the state — or both.” This was just the beginning (Boston Phoenix).
Then, on January 16th, the church mailed out a four page long professionalized information pamphlet to one million Catholics. The information inside insisted, that as Christians, they must push for a constitutional amendment that bans homosexuals from marrying. Later, on February 8th, the archbishop spoke to the crowd at a massive anti-gay-marriage rally in Boston. In his speech he requested that everyone “stand together” to “affirm marriage and family” (Boston Phoenix).
Author and Physicist Heinz Pagels once wrote, “Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.” The scientific data from reputable sources such as the American Psychologists Association and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States have indeed provided us with the information to help resolve this moral conflict. Characteristically, the Catholic Church has decided to ignore these scientific facts and base it’s teachings on tradition, fear, guilt, and mysticism. The teachings of the church are not unlike those of the Abstinence-Only-Marriage-Programs that work to alienate homosexuals in schools and provoke harassment and discrimination (APA).
Without a doubt the church and its people are allowed to express their opinions in this, a free country. However, several sources and interviews revealed that the church may have overstepped its bounds. The Boston Phoenix reported that in ten interviews with state representatives and senators, they found reason to believe that the Church has “intentionally or not – fostered a campaign of harassment against legislators who support civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples.” Additionally, the Church has “found a powerful friend in House Speaker Tom Finneran” (Boston Phoenix).
Finneran, a devoted Catholic, strongly opposes same-sex marriage. As Speaker, he must approve any documents that make it onto the House floor. On March 11th, he allowed a legal memorandum written by a Harvard law professor and others to be placed on every legislative seat in the House chamber. The memo “argued against a ‘compromise’ amendment that would ban gay marriage while establishing civil unions because it would raise "serious religious liberty issues — particularly with respect to the Church and other traditional religious organizations." The allowance of such articles on the House floor was seen as questionable at best. Some legislators felt that this crossed the line created by separation of church and state (Boston Phoenix).
Furthermore, numerous Catholic House members and Senators who have voted with the same-sex marriage side have been “battled from pillar to post” by priests and Church representatives. These elected officials have been openly condemned from those behind the pulpits and altars. Several have taken “viciously homophobic correspondence” from Catholic followers; having even been told that they do not have the entitlement to attend church. As one legislator, soberly put it, "I would describe the Church’s tactics as thug-like, diabolical, and totally void of openness” (Boston Phoenix).
The Church has intimidated representatives of both houses; followers have made intimidating phone calls and sent condemning emails telling them to “burn in hell.” Priests have threatened to “find someone else to run against” and defeat the incumbents with a goal of replacing them with “someone else who can respect God’s will.” Bishop O’Malley has even told state legislators that they have an "obligation" not to receive communion if they take any position contrary to Church teachings. It is worthy to keep in mind that these are just a handful of church-and-state incidents that have taken place in just one state in the United States (Boston Phoenix).
Legislators who openly disagree with the church’s beliefs on same-sex marriage report that they have “never seen the church push so fiercely or so thoroughly on any previous public-policy.” This notion is amazing considering the other topics on which the church has been noted for taking a strong stance, including: service to the poor, opposing the death penalty, and condemning abortions. One state senator even told the Boston Phoenix that he had “never been so pressured by the Church before,” and that, “It has leaned on [him] with an intensity and a consistency” that he had never seen “in any special-interest group.”
From all of this we see that the Catholic Church in Massachusetts, and across the nation, has not only gone to battle against homosexuals, but has also gone so far as to discriminate against non-homosexuals who have viewpoints contrary to their own. Thus, the next part of this report will delve into the connection between the church and the state. Although the church may have good intentions, they are only working, as legislators have pointed out, to add discriminatory language to the constitution for the first time in history. Indeed, we find that a same-sex marriage ban created for religiously grounded reasons is in fact unconstitutional.
In turning to the First Amendment one finds the strongest constitutional argument for debunking the false legitimacy of religious reasoning in regard to same-sex marriage. In whole, the first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The main rhetoric of the first amendment concerning this issue is found in the first half of the amendment. The establishment and free exercise clause, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" signifies many different and consequential things.
First and foremost, this creates what many refer to as the "separation of church and state," which is a reality that has been solidified by numerous Supreme Court rulings. One of the more elucidating written opinions by the Court on this topic was penned by Justice Black in 1947 in the case of Arch R. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, et al (cite source). In the opinion, Justice Black wrote that the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means "at least" this:
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'” (Findlaw.com).
Taking these words, the religiously based case against same-sex marriage erodes significantly. The passing of a law banning gay marriage does, in fact, aid the cause of, and give preference to any religion wishing to do so. Constitutional issues arise when occurrences, such the Catholic Church’s excessive pressuring in Massachusetts, take place. Additionally, same-sex marriage bans force homosexuals to conform to laws based on religious beliefs. What's more, it can easily be maintained that such a law would "punish" those in favor of same-sex marriage for not holding the same "religious beliefs or disbeliefs” (Findlaw.com).
The separation of church and state has been the central idea for such an abundance of Supreme Court cases that the Court has set up various tests in order to assist in adjudication. The three main tests that have been
implemented on numerous occasions include the Lemon test, the Endorsement test, and the Coercion test.
The Lemon test, first appeared in the 1971 Supreme Court case of Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania et al. The Lemon test has three parts, or prongs that must all be met in order for a law to be deemed constitutional. First, the Court establishes that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Second, the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Finally, the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement with religion." If any of these three prongs are violated, then the law in question is found to be unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the first amendment (Cornell University Law School).
Applying the Lemon test to the issue of same-sex marriage, one finds that state bans on gay marriage should, most certainly, be deemed unconstitutional. First off, it is hard to find any legitimate secular
purpose in prohibiting a marriage between two people simply because of their sex. As demonstrated in Goodridge v. Department of Public health, arguments made by the state in regard to procreation, child welfare, and protection of assets were all struck down by the Court. In light of events in Massachusetts, it is even more difficult to claim that such a ban serves a legitimate secular purpose when the issue is pushed by the Church and anti-homosexual-pro-church literature is left upon the seats of legislators on the House floor (Findlaw.com).
Secondly, a government endorsement of a same-sex marriage ban would clearly have a primary effect of advancing religious, and as depicted in Massachusetts’ case, Christian beliefs. Utilizing reasoning, solid evidence, and data from sources such as the APA and SEICUS, and the fundamental language found in the Fourteenth and First Amendments, it is reasonably affirmed that the primary force of such a ban would indeed have an exclusively religious basis.
Finally, the government's actions in banning same-sex marriage would need to be deeply rooted, and therefore, deeply entangled with religion. In the case of Massachusetts it might appear that the opposite is occurring, but to the same effect; religious establishments are becoming excessively entangled in government. As depicted by the Boston Phoenix sources, this entanglement has, at times, come with verbal threats, public condemnation, and extraordinary intimidation.
The next method of examination for consideration is the Endorsement test. Created by Justice O'Connor, the Endorsement test says that a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders (Findlaw.com).
Scrutinizing gay marriage bans under the Endorsement test, one finds that the allowance of such a ban does favor one religion or type of religious view over another. All religions in the United States are not opposed to homosexuality or the concept of homosexual marriage. In fact, the United Church of Christ (UCC), a religious organization that has over one million members in the United States, supports same-sex marriage. They even passed a resolution announcing their support for "equal rights for couples regardless of gender.” Additionally, the Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion), along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, permit same-sex unions. Meanwhile the Presbyterian Church has not yet taken a stance in either direction (BBC News). Clearly, a ban on same-sex marriage would ultimately be an endorsement of one particular religious view over multiple other opinions and beliefs in existence.
Indeed, a couple, be it "straight" or "gay," may not hold any religious beliefs; notwithstanding, such a ban emphatically makes a homosexual couple feel like the outsiders, while heterosexual couples the insiders. Joining this second-class sentiment would be non-secular organizations such as the United Church of Christ. By passing a same-sex marriage ban, the government would be affirming the beliefs on some religious groups and casting aside the convictions of many others.
The last Supreme Court test of interest is the Coercion test. Created by Justice Kennedy, the standards for the test declare a law to be constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion (Findlaw.com).
When this test is applied to same-sex marriage bans we find same-sex marriage bans to recognize and accommodate specific religious beliefs. This, according to Justice Kennedy, would be perfectly fine until one considered the consequences of a same-sex marriage ban. Indeed, the government's clear support of such a law would coerce individuals to support or conform to a specific group’s religious beliefs.
The vast majority of people are brought up in families that teach them certain religious values and beliefs. By passing such a ban, the government would be affirming religious beliefs and telling homosexuals, of all ages, that they are not accepted and that they need to conform to explicit religious beliefs. By allowing a same-sex marriage ban to slip past the Coercion test, the government would be coercing people to behave a certain way, thus violating the accepted notion of separation of church and state.
In summation of these tests, the Court has found that the government cannot promote one religion or faith group over another, it cannot favor a religiously based life over a secularly grounded life, and it cannot assist in promoting a secularly based life over a religious life. Indeed, the constitutionally based and Supreme Court affirmed separation of church and state bars religious favoritism and religion-based interpretation outright in the case of same-sex marriage (Findlaw.com)
Overview of Same-sex Marriage
The case for same-sex marriage is one built on solid facts. Respectable, legitimate sources such as the world’s largest association of psychologists (APA) and the United States Sexuality Information and Education Council (SIECUS) recognize homosexuality as an immutable, natural trait. This fact thus places sexuality on the same plane as other unchangeable characteristics such as race or national origin. People do not choose where they want to be born, what skin color they wish to be, or what sexuality they will be assigned. Surely, with conditions as they are today in the United States, nobody would freely choose to be discriminated against, barred from marriage, and deprived of equal protection rights.
Currently, homosexuals in the Unites States are being harassed, abused, and treated as second class citizens. Younger homosexuals in school are harassed by fellow students and school faculty alike (SIECUS). Homosexuals of all ages are mentally abused and lied to by the dissemination of lies about people of their sexual orientation from schools, religious organizations, interest groups, and their own legislators. Laws have been enacted, based off of these falsehoods, in order to deprive homosexuals of equal rights, liberties, and protections. Unfortunately, in the worst cases, we see innocent people such as Matthew Shepard being murdered solely because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law just as African-Americans and other minorities do.
Interest groups, and most notably, select religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, oppose same-sex marriage vehemently despite scientific fact supported by the APA. Ignoring facts, and relying on old texts, they aggressively lobby state and national legislators, sometimes to shocking extremes. Yet, the First Amendment and the Supreme-Court-accepted concept of separation of church and state prevent the government from passing legislation that favors on religious group. Undoubtedly, not all religions condemn homosexual behavior. Thus, it would be inherently unconstitutional for the government to openly endorse one select viewpoint and legislate based upon this singular belief system.
In total, the language found in the United States Constitution does not allow for same-sex marriage bans. The right to equal protection under the law and the limitations placed on governmental-religious entanglement make such a prohibition unconstitutional outright. Historic Supreme Court rulings and written opinions show that it is unlawful to treat certain groups as second class citizens based on immutable characteristics. Justice Harlan’s written dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson laid the groundwork for civil rights cases to come. The eventual overturn of Plessy and victory for African-American rights in Brown v. Board of Education showed that separate but equal was, in The Court’s eyes, anything but equal. In Loving v. Virginia the Court revealed that marriage was a basic civil right that should not be infringed upon by the government. Finally, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health the Supreme Court of Massachusetts declared that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying resulted in treating homosexuals as second-class citizens and that such bans were found to be a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Taken as a whole, bans on same-sex marriage in the United States appear to stem from the dissemination of false beliefs about homosexuals and the ability of select religious interest groups to guilt and pressure the nation and its legislators into conformity. The problem stems from the bottom up. Starting abruptly in childhood public schools provide sex education that is biased and unforgiving toward homosexual behavior (SEICUS). Private religious schools indoctrinate children with anti-homosexual religious beliefs that disregard professional or scientific evidence to the contrary. Today in the United States those opposed to same-sex marriage are waging an emotional battle for a ban, rather than accepting scientifically and intellectually-based facts in their minds and hearts. The success seen in favor of homosexuals and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts creates a glimmer of hope for equal rights in the United States. It is my hope that this trend will continue and that this civil rights endeavor, much like the struggle of African-Americans, will be a success.
Works Cited
American Psychologists Association Home Page. “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” 1997. November 27th, 2007. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html.
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. 1997. December 6th, 2007.
http://www.siecus.org/policy/LGBTQ_FS.pdf.
Matthew Shepard Foundation. 1998. December 6th, 2007. http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/PageServer.
Oyez.org. 1995. Various cases and opinions. October 27th, 2007. www.oyez.org.
Findlaw.com. Various cases and opinions. 1994. November 9th, 2007. www.findlaw.com.
Lombardi, Kristen. “The Catholic War Against Gay Marriage.” Boston Phoenix on the Web March 6th, 2004. December 6th, 2007. http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/037...
The Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute Homepage. 1992. November 9th, 2007. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0602_ZO.htm...
BBC News. “US Church Backs Same Sex Marriage” BBC News Website July 5th, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm
Vago, Steven. Law and Society. New Jersey: Pierson Education, 2006.
Eskridge, William. The Case For Same Sex Marriage. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Wardle, Strasser, Duncan et al. Marriage and Same Sex Unions. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)