« Intelligence Confirms - Cheney is Full of Crap on Torture Effectiveness | Main | Religious Extremists Perpetuating "Religious Ban" Urban Myth »

"For me, it's about being biblically correct."

Carrie Prejean, Runner-up Miss USA, said the following in response to a question about gay marriage:

"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other," Prejean responded. "But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

And in follow-up interviews, Prejean defended her statement thusly:

"I don't take back what I said," she told Lauer, adding that she "had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God."

If it's her heart and her beliefs and her God -- what business does she have dictating her beliefs on others?

"It's not about being politically correct," she said. "For me, it's about being biblically correct."

It's her bible - why should her bible dictate the rights of gay Americans?

It shouldn't.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.4/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (49)

Conservachef:

Sorry Lee, but she expressed her opinion. What business do you have dictating your beliefs on her? Why should you dictate the rights of others? She shouldn't follow her morals?

From your own quote:

"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other," Prejean responded.

...I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Sounds to me like she is open to the idea of putting it to a vote, and letting the chips fall where they may.

**

Completely off topic, but I am slightly curious about something- is Lee Ward your name, or a nickname? I sort of enjoy sailing, and leeward is a nautical term.

Steve:

So whose beliefs should dictate to everyone else? And if the Bible is not a valid basis on which to form one's beliefs, what else isn't? Is it just the Bible you oppose as a basis for a personal belief system or is it all books? If my personal beliefs are based on the Bible, they aren't valid in the public arena, but if they are based on "Rules for Radicals" they are valid?

Lee Ward:

A bible should not dictate the rights of Americans - we have other instruments in this country for that.

@Conservachef: My parents have a sense of humor.

Conservachef:

Lee (#3),

Thanks for the answer.

The Bible should direct the morals of a person, who then looks at issues and judges them by the standard of their morals. (And by extension, by the standard of the Bible.)

From what you said, you seem to not agree with using the Bible to direct legislation- "We should enact policy X because on page 388 of the Bible is says Y."

I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. But as I said, if a person uses the Bible for their moral standard, then they shouldn't be condemned for following through on their beliefs.

Steve:

So now I am curious... which other instruments are you specifically thinking of here?

Rich Fader:

I might care more if somebody explained to me exactly what official power a Miss USA runner-up has to enforce her opinions on others, just because she placed in the Donald's beauty contest.

Paul Hooson:

This sure reminds me of the Taliban that seized control of a part of Pakistan just 60 miles outside of the capital. Immediately these religious fighters began to inform men that it was illegal to cut their beards, and for music shops and movie theatres to close, because it violates their sense of their own version of the Muslim faith.

Miss California is the same trip. Here's someone, who is not especially articulate, that believes if something violates their religious views, then it should be illegal for everyone else. It's that Taliban thing again.

Lee Ward:

C-Chef said: "I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. But as I said, if a person uses the Bible for their moral standard, then they shouldn't be condemned for following through on their beliefs."

In her family that's fine - they can follow the teachings of her bible -- but WTF does her bible have to do with the rights of my gay sister (if I had one) - or the rights of anyone outside of her family?

It shouldn't have any say whatsoever. That's my position.

Conservachef:

Hooson (#7),

So voting on the legality of something is the same as seizing control of a region and enforcing a sort of totalitarian regime? Wow.

Miss CA said (From Lee's quote) "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other."

As I said in comment 1, it seems like she is ok with voting on it and seeing where it goes.

Paul, you're stretching it a bit too far.

Steve:

Paul, comparing Miss California to the Taliban is quite a stretch. Are you serious?

Seeking to make something "illegal for everyone" by casting a vote for or against a proposed law is a world away from making something illegal for everyone by intimidation and violence.

So Christians, by virtue of being Christian, should have no voice in public policy? Is that what you are saying? Sounds Talibanish to me...

Conservachef:

Lee, (#8)

So she shouldn't have any say whatsoever because she bases her beliefs on something you disagree with, right? If she is following through with her beliefs in a legal way (voting, etc. as opposed to bombs or something), why shouldn't she? She didn't (as Hooson seems to hint) advocate outlawing gay marriage at the point of a gun, a'la the Taliban.

Lee Ward:

She can have an opinion, sure... It shouldn't carry any weight in the public arena if it's based on her religion and she's trying to dictate her religious beliefs onto others.... the same as Buddhist teachings should not have any sway, or any religion for that matter.


Lee Ward:

In our country, we should not legislate (codify) religious beliefs.

It's a two-way sword, folks - think about it. Do you want your government telling you that you will now follow Buddhist teachings? Seriously?

Conservachef:

Lee, (12,13)

I agree- directly. See my example of " enact law x because on page 388 of this holy book it says the same thing."

However, we do have to vote according to our morals and beliefs. I wouldn't stop a Buddhist from voting according to their beliefs anymore than a Christian.

Lee Ward:

And I wouldn't dream of stopping Prejean from voting her beliefs -- but I do think that people who believe that everyone in the United States should follow their particular religious beliefs are extremists, and a danger to our free society where - in theory at least - we are still free to practice our own religion free from government dictate.

I think we're in agreement, C-Chef. Pass the mustard.

Ray H.:

Lee's an idiot and always will be. He see's his own way of seeing things and no matter how ridiculous it is, will not change his mind. She expresed an opinion but no where did she say that everyone else should see things her way. Unfortunatly, you don't think other peoples opinions count for anything. Who is the smaller person here?

Conservachef:

Lee, (#15)

Happily. Pleasant discussion. Have a great day!

Alan:

The question was "what do you think", so she answered what she thought.

Apparently the question really was not "what do you think" but "what do I think"; obviously she gave the "wrong" answer.

What bugs me about the whole debate, including the one here, is the intellectual dishonesty.

"Tolerance" (ostensibly for other or even contrary viewpoints) is loudly proclaimed, but only when "your" viewpoint is aired. When a contrary viewpoint is suggested, much less debated, there is no tolerance for the competition of intellectual ideas.

"Tolerance" means "You agree to hear my side and I'll agree not to let you say what you think about it."

"What do you think" really means "If I want your opinion I'll give it to you."

This suggests that the intolerant "tolerance" of proponents for gay "marriage" (in this case) is really insecurity. One who is secure in who they are and about their convictions is able to debate the issue without attacking the debater. One who is insecure in their person, convictions, or reasons for their convictions frequently resorts to attacking the person instead of the issue.

Carrie Prejean was very gracious in her comments about the vitriol directed her way; the same cannot be said about her critics.

If I were an undecided by-stander, that alone would decide the issue for me.

The question of gay marriage needs to be honestly debated in the public square, and the effects on society need to be honestly explored. The fact that many on the one side have already made up their minds does not mean that the rest of the public doesn't have honest questions or concerns, but they are treated as if they themselves had no rights to question the issue. Perhaps more people would be open to studying the question if there were honest debate.

Lee Ward:

Ray - She's welcome to practice her own religious beliefs but she shouldn't force me to practice her beliefs as well.

Here's what she said:

But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

In her family? Fine.

In her country? No. She's trying to dictate and force her religion onto me.

This country offers me freedom of religion - and that should not change.

Paul Hooson:

Consevachief and Steve, enshrining private religious laws into the public law is exactly like the Taliban. The Taliban assume that their minority views of the Muslim faith are the only correct views and seek to enforce that on other Muslims who hold more moderate views. In the same way, allowing Gay marriages may violate the views of some churches, however making it illegal in all churches, even in those who believe in the practice is an outrage.

Churches should be allowed to hold whatever religious rites they choose without other churches imposing control on them, or the state. State control of religious rites such as banning churches who wish to perform Gay marriages is indeed a serious violation of the separation of church standards this nation was founded on.


In the past the state has attempted to enforce it's views on Jehovah's Witnesses and others, but successful appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court have always overturned these laws as unconstitutional prohibitions on free religious exercise.

There was nothing in the California Amendment that forced churches that disagreed with Gay marriage to perform such ceremonies, but there was of course a prohibition against churches that believed in Gay marriage from being allowed to practice this religious rite. This is what in my view makes this amendment unconstitutional. Government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion by churches. And a small number of churches cannot seek to impose their religion on other churches.

During the 1930's in Oregon for example, the Ku Klux Klan had a strong core of support in the Oregon Legislature and sought to shut down religious schools run by the Roman Catholic Church and the Ku Klux Klan had friends at AT&T, the major phone company, which had rules where they would not hire Catholics. Any Catholic would wanted work with AT&T had to lie about their religion claiming to be a Protestant of some sort to get work there. At one time many Protestants in the state sought to end religious education in the state of Oregon, believing in public schools as way to beat back the Catholic Church. Now, today some advocate just the opposite bemoaning public schools and support school vouchers or home schooling.

This stuff where some more extreme or self-righteous Christian churches attempt to laud power over on other churches is nothing new.

Conservachef:

Hooson, (#20)

You said, Consevachief and Steve, enshrining private religious laws into the public law is exactly like the Taliban.

Again, let me be clear with what you are saying, please. Are you really saying that voting on an issue is the same as forcing it on someone by gunpoint?

Really???

AJ:

She is NOT saying her beliefs should dictate. She was asked her OPINION, which she has every right to have. I will never support gay marriage either because God's law trumps man's feelings. Does that mean I think my religion dictates the law? No, it does not. She should NOT be persecuted for her beliefs. You trying to claim that her opinion means she is trying to dictate your beliefs is dishonest. And it's ridiculous that you preach tolerance but you have none for anyone else.

Paul Hooson:

Conservachef, the Taliban doesn't always enforce every rule by gunfire. However, they make their view of religion the only allowed view. By the same token, some churches who wanted to enforce their own version of religion made it illegal for California churches who believe in Gay marriage ceremonies to practice this rite in their churches. How is this any different than the Taliban?

Conservachef:

Hooson, (#23)

How is it different?

Voting.

Mike:

#23- churches make church law, the Taliban try's to make laws for the common people. If someone doesn't like a church law they can leave. If someone doesn't like a Taliban law they are shot.

Paul Hooson:

Conservachef, I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever intended that basic portions of the Constitution or Bill Of Rights should be subject to mob rule, or even , majority votes by those seeking to weaker the rights of individual churches to hold their own religious rites such as Gay marriage.

Steve:

Paul,
Any church anywhere can hold a gay "marriage" if they want to - they have been for years. It just doesn't have the force of a legal contract. A church rite doesn't have to have the sanctioning of the state to be legit! I've never seen any ruling from Congress on whether the bread of communion is literally the body of Christ or just a symbolic representation of Christ!

I'm curious to ask (though my questions often do not get answered here): should polygamy be legalized? If two men should be allowed to marry, how about three men? I'm serious... I really want to hear your reply.

Paul Hooson:

Mike, the California Amendment uses the state constitution to make it illegal for a California Church such as a Metropolitan Church congregation to have their own religious rites such as a Gay marriage ceremony. How can public law be used to control private church rituals? This is why this antiGay marriage amendment is clearly unconstitutional. Government was never intended to have authority over reasonable church practices as long as these practices don't endanger children or lives. For example, an adult Jehovah's Witness may decline a blood transfusion as a part of their faith. Many keep blood at a hospital ahead of surgery because of this. But the state can prevent a child from this church from being denied a blood transfusion by their parents in the interest of the state and child.

In the case of the state banning Gay marriage rites by private churches, the state would be hard pressed to claim that they are protecting lives by this unconstitutional interference in private church rites. Such a state interference in private church rites has never been upheld by the courts in this country.

Conservachef:

Hooson, (26)

Majority vote is foundational to our government. Whether it is in a state wide referendum, or in an elected body, majority votes rule. If you have a problem with ballot initiatives or whatever, then seek to change them. They are in place, however, so you should abide by them.

(28)

Voters in CA amended the CA constitution to include the following: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Amending the constitution is hardly unconstitutional. Plus, nothing in that quote leads me to believe the state is interfering in church rites. It is the state saying "no" to the civil marriage of two people of the same sex.

Lee Ward:

"I'm curious to ask (though my questions often do not get answered here): should polygamy be legalized?"

Irrelevant questions are usually ignored, or would you care to elaborate on why this question matters?

Steve:

I ask the questions to find out your line of thinking. Since the Bible is not a valid basis for public opinion, I am curious about what Paul (and you) would say to legalizing a 3 or 4 way marriage and WHY. That's all.

Conservachef:

I have a quick question (only a short time till I leave the computer), if anyone doesn't mind offering a thought on it. Does the equal protection clause have any effect on this topic? Should another state be forced to recognize a gay marriage that was performed in Vermont? I don't think it is used, but I have wondered why it hasn't.

Lee Ward:

Does "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" apply here? Guess not...

I've seen legal opinions that say the marriage would have to be recognized, but i couldn't argue the point.

Luke:

Interesting discussion we've got going here, folks :) I'd like to post a reply to one of Lee's last comments and the quote "what God has joined together let no man put asunder".

Firstly, logic and "intellectual honesty" would suggest that if you start quoting from the Bible to support your arguments, you automatically subscribe to the wisdom of the Bible in its entirety. This, then, would negate any subsequent argument in favor of same-sex marriage, as the Bible quite clearly warns against this.

Another point is the validity of the quote itself in this context. By using this extract from the common "Christian" marriage ceremony, Lee is assuming that God joins together same-sex couples, when this is clearly absurd. Although our earthly laws may permit such a practice, the Bible clearly states that God condemns this. So in God's eyes, such a marriage doesn't exist.

Paul Hooson:

Conservachef you may disagree with my premise that it has never been held legal for government to regulate the private rites of churches, but look at the history of court cases since this nation began. This California constitutional amendment is likely unconstitutional because it denies private churches the rite to perform private rites. Mormons practice a "Baptism Of The Dead" will someone seek to make that illegal next? What about denying Baptists the right to perform baptisms? Churches have their rights to perform their own private rituals. The state has no role banning private religious rites such as performing a Gay marriage in a church that choses to perform such rites.

Steve the marriage of more than two persons is not at issue here. A marriage of more than two persons to each other is felony under the laws of many states known as polygamy.

I usually act as my own attorney in business law cases involving my own business interests and argue my own cases, except where I need a bar member to write me up a contract, and in one big case, the judge was removed from the bench due to a polygamy scandal right in the middle of a long case which took weeks, effectively ruining the case for me.

Lee Ward:

@Luke -- I thought my quote my raise some eyebrows...

Not all Christian churches adhere to the literal bible-thumping you seem to ascribe to, Luke. The Episcopal church, for example. Unitarians also.

So you argue that Episcopal churches don't worship the same God that bible-thumping Christian churches worship?

If an Episcopal priest unites a same-sex couple in a union -- you believe that is not a union before God simply because your church interprets the bible to be opposed to same-sex marriages?

That seems rather absurd.

Luke:

Hmm...

I learned a long time ago never to argue with a fool, because it just creates TWO fools. However, let's see if we can get a point across here.

Lee, I think we've already established that you've misinterpreted Carrie Prejean's personal response to a question in the beauty contest. And you've done the same with my comments. I've simply endeavored to apply a little logic to your arguments, which fail the test comprehensively. You clearly feel threatened by Miss Prejean's answer, and my attempt to shine some logic on your points has also riled you. Feeling a tad insecure, perhaps? As for me "Bible-thumping", I don't think you understand that term, either. On that note, I don't believe (and I'm not trying to force my own personal opinion on you here, so please don't fret) that Bible-thumpers are actually coming from a true Christian perspective, in any case.

On the other hand, you mention the word "interprets", and I think this is key to the overall discussion. The reason we have the whole plethora of religions that we do is largely due to "interpretations". Unfortunately, especially in this day and age, we tend to want to "interpret" everything around us - not just the Bible, but laws, conventions, even people's attitudes - to serve our own ends. Just because somebody has "interpreted" the Bible to mean that same-sex marriage is sanctioned by God, does not mean that this is correct. But plenty of people will subscribe (not 'ascribe', as you incorrectly used) to any new "liberal" meaning or interpretation that saves them the burden of having to accept any responsibility for their choices. This is not just prevalent in religion, by the way. The medical system has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

I think Miss Prejean's answer was an honest, unrehearsed response to a question probably designed to create a stir (going by the questioner's reaction to her answer). And I'm unsure as to its relevance in a beauty pageant. I do think she probably could have chosen her words more wisely - the "in my country" phrase was always destined to cause distress, I suspect...

we all have our choice on what to do and say and Miss California decided to say what she needs to say but with a consequence of giving up the purpose of why she had joined the pageant and that is bringing home the crown.

Clancy:

Lee, the fact that you can find anything at all in this story to gripe about pretty much explains the total lack of cognitive ability you command.

He (Perez) asked her (Carrie) what her opinion was on gay marriage. She responded with her truth. She is no more guilty dictating her beliefs with her answer than Perez was with his question. End of story.

Yet perhaps this explains the liberal mindset; Individuals are just too stupid to have their own truths - they must rely on others to know their truths.

(Oh - and for the record - you don't have the balls allow this comment to remain posted.)

Lee Ward:

Clancy - as even Luke grudgingly admits -- Prejean's claim that her religious beliefs should be practiced by our entire country is where she tripped up.

I don't have any problem with her religious beliefs guiding her life, but I have major problems with her religious beliefs being forced on me, my children, etc.

I realize I'm repeating myself, but your comment didn't cover any new ground.

Conservachef:

Hooson, (35)

Sorry I'm late to reply. You said, Conservachef you may disagree with my premise that it has never been held legal for government to regulate the private rites of churches...

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that proposition 8 doesn't stop churches from performing a ceremony. I'm saying that proposition 8 says that the state will not recognize them.

On the CA secretary of state's web site, you can find the text of the proposal- "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is what is added to the state constitution. It does NOT forbid churches from performing ceremonies, baptisms, funerals, exorcisims, or anything.

(Again, I apologize for my lack of hyperlinking knowledge. The CA SOS web address is http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm ) You can read the actual text of the proposal in a pdf link on that page. I agree that the SOS page says "eliminates the right to marry" but again, looking at the text of the proposal, it doesn't say anything about forbidding church ceremonies.

Clancy:

Lee - seriously - when I read "But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

I don't see where "Prejean's claim that her religious beliefs should be practiced by our entire country". I see where you can derive that, but that's not what she said. She simply stated her opinion.

But all of this is pointless - we're not going to solve the problems talking about a MS. America contestant.

And I think we're all missing the point here. In my opinion, the problem is semantics. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with - marriage is a religious institution and for the government to recognize "marriage" is wrong. What the Gov't should recognize instead are unions (for all/any). Marriage would be left to the churches (or any ordained minister) who would then be free to marry whomever they wish. (btw - I'm an ordained minister, and if you're not you could be too in 5 mins via the ULC - and yes I'm serious.)

But to try to take the whole separation of church and state thing to the extent you are implicating is just foolish. This country was founded on strong Christian beliefs, and as such many of them have found their way into our laws. That's reality. To attempt to dismantle them only because they stem from a religion is not only foolish, but impossible. Where do you draw the line? The bible forbids murder - does that mean we should strike down all murder laws?

Lee Ward:

And if the bible didn't forbid murder it wouldn't be law anyway?

Some things are just common sense - like equal rights for all Americans, including gays. Prejean disagrees and thinks that in our country Gays should not have the right to marry.

It's just common sense that they should.

Clancy:

Common sense? "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

consists of what people in common would agree on - Obviously, people in common do NOT agree on this. And in recorded history, our present society is the first to ever seriously contemplate it. So as to calling it common sense? It's quite the contrary.

No, the problem will always come back to religious ideals that have been incorporated into building civilization. It's a fool's errand to imagine that you can ever separate the two without destroying civilization.

Lee Ward:

equal rights for all Americans isn't "common sense"?

Sure it is - except to some.

Clancy:

Divert/twist - whatever it takes to make your arguements in your mind.

Equal rights = common sense

Gay marriage != common sense (as common sense is defined)

(and as previously stated - I'm pro-gay marraige)

Luke:

I think Lee may be a bit confused by many of the terms, words and phrases being employed here. The latest example is "common sense". If we pass the concept of same-sex marriage through the filter of common sense, one must conclude that this has only become common because society as a whole is losing its sense.

Thuyen:

"Miss California is the same trip. Here's someone, who is not especially articulate, that believes if something violates their religious views, then it should be illegal for everyone else. It's that Taliban thing again."


Then you won't like Jefferson, who liberals often misinterpret his seperation of church and state comments, but ignored his views that gays, adulterers, and polygamists should be castrated as matter of law. Personally, I think he was nutty for that. But funny, those who bash Prejean for expressing an opinion have remain silence when the biggest liberal names have said the same thing on marriage Prejean did (the Clintons, Biden, and Obama), and Bill Clinton himself signed into law the DOMA.

And you definitely won't like any of the founding documents. The Declaration said our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are derived from God. The Treaty of Paris said that the God that both Britan and America worshipped is Trintiy God. The Articles of Confederation, our original constitution, itself said we are a nation under God. Even the US Constitution had a reference to God, when it said in the year of our Lord, followed by statement "in witness" which has God as witness.

You would not like the founders who passed state constitutions that either mandated the Christian faith for voting and/or running for office, and the "more liberal" ones like Virginia, while not mandating Christianity for these things, mandated Christian morals. You would not like them for passing the Northwest Ordinance that said religion and morality shall be encouraged forever, a sentimement George Washington, the father of our country, echoed in his Farewell Address.

So if Prejean is on the level of the Taliban, should not the same be said about the Clintons, Obama, and Biden? And alot worse be said about the founding fathers?

Thuyen:

Clancy: But to try to take the whole separation of church and state thing to the extent you are implicating is just foolish. This country was founded on strong Christian beliefs, and as such many of them have found their way into our laws. That's reality. To attempt to dismantle them only because they stem from a religion is not only foolish, but impossible. Where do you draw the line? The bible forbids murder - does that mean we should strike down all murder laws?

Me: Yep, even the Constitution itself had articles within it derived from Christianity. The two or more witnesses rule is in the Bible. Sunday being labeled as rest day is not directly in the Bible but very much part of the Christian traditions among many denominations. The view that one's relatives should not be punished for one's crimes also come from the Bible. The idea of "we the people...do ordain..." is a common term and phrase in Christian covenants prior to the Constitution and comes straight from the Bible where the people with one voice say everything God asked in His covenant (binding on them and future generations), they shall do. The concept of right to life, liberty, and property as written in the fifth amendment is almost word for word straight from the Puritan Mass. Body of Liberties and also echoed by Locke who said that these rights come from the natural law of God of the Bible (he defined natural law the same as moral aspect of God's law in the OT).

So, religious morals and laws are tied together very much so in the Constitution.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.