by Ethan Johnson
November 18, 2000

To the chagrin of some, the relief of others, and the general indifference of many, I'm not a religious person. I was raised Unitarian, and at some point in my life I decided enough was enough, and I stopped going to church.

My Mom made sure I "sat in" on diverse church services so I'd at least have some exposure to what's out there. Even if I didn't see the Way, the Truth, and the Light, I'd at least have a rudimentary understanding of various belief systems. Smart move on her part. She also views the local church as a support system that I'm refusing to tap into at my own peril. I view churches as places that espouse beliefs that differ wildly from my own.

Differing beliefs and ideas are not necessarily an anathema to me, in and of themselves. However, I (for instance) resisted the advisement to go to church to meet girls, since I would have to "pretend" to believe dogma I rejected, and I did neither party justice in so doing. Being single and true to myself was more important to me than being "involved" with a woman and being a liar to everybody.

I did sound work for the Church of Christ in our neighborhood. I viewed it as "community service". I was respectful of their services and even took Communion(!) on several occasions. I viewed this as drinking socially. The church was awash in soap opera. In fact, what faith I began to build up in the church "system" was dashed when I saw the despicable politics and so forth that went on in the church proper, let alone anywhere else. Leave it to the Greek author Aeschylus to point out (rightly) that our Gods are imperfect, so expecting mere mortals to be paragons of virtue and perfection was asking a bit much. Amended to the Christian perspective, only God is perfect so it's too much to ask for perfection in His followers.

What brings me to such thoughts is the web site attributed to Real Love Productions, whom I assume is wholly responsible for its content. That said, let us examine what has been put forth for our edification from this organization.

Why Are We Here?

You see, we're put here on this earth [sic] for a reason -- to spread the gospel and the love of Christ. That’s it. We’re here and we’re His.

My immediate smartass reaction to this statement is this: What was our collective "purpose" prior to Christ making his celebrated cameo appearance 2000 years ago? Sounds like there must have been a lot of standing around with our collective hands in our collective pockets! But wait! Modern times might shed some light on what some of us were doing back in those ancient times. Admonishing others to "repent for the time of the Lord is at hand". Ah yes. Such people must have felt awfully smug when JC finally showed up in the manger. Surely they would have martyred themselves to save Jesus from the cross!

Martyrdom brings that choice home in the most immediate, most concrete way possible. "Which do your [sic] choose? What is more important to you -- this life with all of the fun it offers, or this God of yours?" It’s where the "rubber hits the road." It’s easy to say that we love God more than anything else in our lives, but it’s not so easy to prove it when the chips are down.

Unfortunately, the author's well-intentioned screed suffers from an overall lack of credibility. We hear what we want to hear, and sadly this author has engaged in a fanatical willingness to believe an emotionally charged story and ignores the fact that the story that inspired this article was trumped up, if not a flat-out hoax. In fairness to the author, this site is not the only entity propogating this modern-day myth.

Why Do We Get Married?

Why does the state bother itself with marriage at all? Is it because we think love is so wonderful that we want to recognize it publicly? Is the government really just a romantic one at heart, getting a thrill out of seeing two people who care about each other?

No and no. Marriage exists for one simple reason -- because marriages produce children. Children are the future of our society. Children are helpless and vulnerable. Children have certain needs that they cannot by themselves fulfill -- needs like shelter, protection, support and love.

Aw, sweet. However, this suggests that getting married and not having children is socially irresponsible behavior. What is your problem, those of you who recklessly tie the knot and selfishly enjoy your life together without (gasp) procreating?! Have you no shame?

The shame is visited solely upon the author of this article, in my estimation. In the defense of the claim that gays should not be allowed to marry, the reasons are described as such:

Homosexual unions fill none of these requirements. They don’t, by their very nature, produce children. I realize, of course, that with the state of reproductive technology today, anything is possible. But is that reproductive technology always in the best interest of the child, and should society be promoting it by creating "marriages" between two people of the same sex? Don’t get me wrong -- I’m not saying that homosexually oriented people can’t be good parents. In fact, some of the gay men I know would, in many ways, make absolutely wonderful fathers. (Of course, I don’t like the idea of a child growing up in an atmosphere where immoral acts are treated as moral. But then again, that happens in a lot of heterosexual households as well.) But that’s all beside the point. Kids need a father and a mother. Heather Has Two Mommies is fiction. And in the households where it’s fact, Heather is being deliberately deprived of the father she most desperately needs.

The above quote speaks volumes to me about the timid morality and indignation expressed at people whose only sin was being "different". How far of a reach would it be to substitute "interracial" for "homosexual" in the above paragraph?

The "Lockbox" of Good Intentions

Matthew Shepard. James Byrd Junior. Two different people. Two different places. Same end result.

If we "forget the past", as some have advised us to do, do we truly move forward in a straight line of progress and greater understanding? Or do we merely walk a winding path that brings us back around to stumble over the same pitfalls that bedeviled us before?

This is the question that comes to mind when I read the following:

Why don’t we all listen to Dennis Shepard and let Matthew rest in peace?

Good idea. And remember, the Blacks proved they could not self-govern during Reconstruction. And the Holocaust never happened.

On some level, I do understand the frustration behind the movement for "hate crimes" legislation. It seems incredible that, despite all of our efforts, brutal crimes such as this one continue to happen. It’s tempting to start grasping at straws, thinking that we have to do something -- anything -- to prevent this from happening again. I understand that, but I fail to see where "hate crimes" legislation could possibly bring anything new to the table.

If your church was burned to the ground, and your parishioners murdered for their beliefs, would you see the value in such laws then?

Knowing very little about the author of these articles, I am left to believe that this person, while literate, is either extremely sheltered or else flagrantly casts aside contrary opinions and even facts in favor of his or her own belief system.

Conclusion

Despite my overall lack of "mainstream" religious convictions, I feel that organized religion can in fact play a positive role in our communities. I cast a wary eye on so-called "faith based" community outreach programs, but I suppose that help that comes with strings attached is preferable to outright apathy and neglect.

However, I do not and will not accept the use of religious dogma as a tool for casting judgement on others, justifying age-old prejudices, and depriving others of their individual freedoms and liberties.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not feeling the "love". <EM>