Rev. Barry W. Lynn: September 2009 Archives

Jay, a few thoughts:

The Ten Commandments, as you and Judge DeWeese seem to believe, don't represent an "absolute," any more than the allegedly "relativist" proposals which seem to upset you. It's impossible to claim the Ten Commandments aren't open to interpretation.

For example, would there be an exception to "Thou shall not kill," for those who do so in self defense? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"  Should we give it the Twenty-First Century meaning, or revert to its original meaning: sex with a married woman (single women OK) or by a married woman? Our mutual friend Alan Dershowitz has done some wonderful writing about this over the years.

What the Ten Commandments does is provide us with a generalized sense of right or wrong . But there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue. It's just as morally "absolute" or "relative" as the Humanist Manifesto.

Sadly, I had to miss this year's edition of the Religious Right's "family values" festival -- the Values Voters Summit here in Washington.  I was engaging in my own celebration of family values by participating in my son's wedding out in California.  Now that was a great event.

I've been reading many accounts of the Summit and saw a bit of it on C-SPAN.  Last year, the big news was that "pro-family" Sarah Palin had just been nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate.  She didn't show up then, but she was busy campaigning elsewhere.  Palin didn't show up this year either, but unless she doesn't realize the election is over, she must have decided that she had better places to be even now.  

However, not to forego the Right's newly found feminism, two of this year's most awaited speakers were women.  De-crowned Miss California-USA Carrie Prejean showed up to explain how her whole beauty pageant history was some kind of divine plan.  Apparently, God got in touch with blogger Perez Hilton to convince him to ask her the same-sex marriage question that she claims lost her the Miss USA title. Not to worry, though. She noted she will be getting a "bigger crown" later, presumably in heaven.

On Thursday, I blogged defending the position that the current version of the health care reform bill moving through the House does not cover abortion. I've tried to respond to some of the posted responses already.

I'd also like to point out an interesting perspective on the issue brought up by Steve Waldman, our editor-in-chief at Beliefnet. In an article for the Wall Street Journal, he writes:

"If the Capps amendment is off, it's by a matter of inches or feet, not miles. So when pro-life forces claim that, as a result of the 'affordability credits,' taxpayers are paying for abortion, they're being hyperbolic at best, deceptive at worst."

I definitely think it's worth a read, and you can find his article here.

In the meantime, I also had a conversation with Congresswoman Lois Capps on my radio show, CultureShocks. After talking with her, I am even more confident that she has been honest and upfront about her intent regarding this piece of legislation.  She has made it abundantly clear that her amendment's purpose is to ensure that no federal funds will be used for abortion, with a few exceptions already provided in the Hyde Amendment.

"The amendment was clearly designed to get that on the record," Capps said. "We did not want this very important debate on health care reform to become a debate on abortion policy.

 "This is the time," she continued, "to deal with the high cost of health insurance and the need for including everyone."  

Indeed it is.

To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.

 

I don't know which polls you are looking at, but it appears that there was a double digit growth in support of the President's basic approach after he spoke to the joint session of Congress.  He also told the truth about what the healthcare plan--at least as it is moving through the House of Representatives--doesn't cover.  It doesn't have the federal government funding any types of abortions not already funded by Medicaid under the so-called "Hyde amendment".

Jay, it seems absolutely clear that an amendment by Congresswoman Lois Capps of California is a brilliantly conceived resolution of the whole matter.  Unfortunately, it has been villified by many on the Right and simply misunderstood by the generally responsible group Factcheck.org.

 

I should begin by noting that I hate beauty pageants. Judging women, in whole or in large part, by appearances is a sexist and anachronistic affront to an entire gender.

I must admit, however, that the latest wrinkle in the Carrie Prejean, former Miss California USA, controversy has grabbed my attention. Prejean, who was a finalist in the Miss USA Pageant in April, made a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage during the question and answer segment of the contest. Religious Right groups immediately began complaining that she came in second because of the content of her answer and that she deserved to win the competition.

After the event, Ms. Prejean suffered some embarrassment in regard to a series of "modeling" photographs that appeared on the Internet, but Pageant officials supported her continued activity as Miss California USA.  Then, several weeks later, her employment was terminated, with officials claiming that she had failed to participate in several public events that she was contractually obliged to do and that, on the other hand, she had made some unauthorized media appearances.

Ms. Prejean has now sued Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, as well as publicist Roger Neal for what she claims was an illegal firing.  I have no opinion about this contract dispute.  However, she is also claiming that the company dismissed her because of an anti-religious bias.  She is asserting that the company told her not to discuss God and her religious values even before the night she gave the infamous anti-same sex marriage answer.