Well said.

Supporting evidence for Hobbs comments re: public opinion polls: The Oak Ridger newspaper's online poll (www.oakridger.com) for the last week asked the following:

Should the new pope allow priests to marry and allow women to join the priesthood?

1. Should allow priests to marry
2. Should allow women to join the priesthood
3. Should allow both
4. Should not allow either one

Editors at the Oak Ridger should read the post by Hobbs.

I submit a 5th choice: Religious doctrine is decided by the religious. The arrogance of the media on occasions such as this is just incredible.

I don't remember, did any of our media elite do public opinion polls when the Episcopal Church appointed an openly homosexual and adulterous man a bishop? Maybe they did and I don't recall, but I doubt it.

Or, as Pope Benedict put it in a quote you're probably going to see around quite a bit:
"Christianity is not 'our' work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose."

Terry says;

"I don't remember, did any of our media elite do public opinion polls when the Episcopal Church appointed an openly homosexual and adulterous man a bishop? Maybe they did and I don't recall, but I doubt it."

Yes, they did, but this started me thinking, Whats the difference between the elevation of Pope Benedict and Bishop Robinson? Why is the elevation of Ratzinger accepted without question while Robinson is almost universally condemned?

Both Churches held a conclave. Both Churches prayed for God's guidance. Both Churches voted. And both Churches elevated a priest to a higher office they felt he was worthy of , in their eyes and in the eyes of God. Why is one considered a miracle and the other not? Why is one considered sanctified and the other is not? Is God so weak or choosy that he only guides Catholics in the selection of their leaders?

What's also interesting is that homosexuality is being brought up frequently in both instances. I guess the question of how Christians should, and do, treat gay and lesbian people appears to be one of the defining moral challenges to Christianity of this age.

I must say that its not a very pretty city on the hill that they have built so far. Its probably not politically correct to say that Christian policy on gay and lesbian people is still guided more by human bigotry, rather than divine revelation. However, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

If "eternal truth is eternal truth" and if "it was sin in the first century AD, it is sin now and will be sin a millennia hence," then how can you explain that, in 1616, Galileo's opinion that the sun is the center of the solar system the earth is not the center is not immovable, but moves was declared by the Catholic Church as "philosophically false and absurd, theologically heretical." Later, Galileo was held under papal house arrest for spreading these heretical opinions.

Since that time, not only has the Catholic Church accepted Galileo's findings, it has gone as far to accept, at least in part, the theory of evolution by allowing for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance. This is only one example of the church's modification of previous "eternal truths" over the centuries.

How can you arrogantly declare that church theology is fixed and unchanging and that the Pope's positions are based on his "understanding of eternal, unchanging truth" when the church's own view of that "unchanging truth" has been subject to change based upon social and scientific realities existing at various times in history?

Under your static view of theology, many of the world's great discoveries would be condemned as sins. It's difficult to believe that you really hold this view.

TomJ, you are confusing eternal unchanging truth with human imperfect understanding of same.

The eternal truth that the earth revolves around the sun was ALWAYS true, regardless of what Galileo or the Catholic Church or scientists of that day believed.

There IS eternal truth regarding abortion and birth control, just to name a few issues. It may or may not be what the Catholic Church says it is. I happen to believe Pope John Paul II and his predecessors are right on abortion, wrong on birth control.

What I was praising was not their specific positions on specific issues, but their willingness to commit to a stance on the belief that it is right according to the eternal truth of God's word.

I was praising consistency and praising Pope John Paul II's refusal to change church doctrine based on opinion polls.

Just because today's world thinks XYZ is a good thing doesn't make it true (or false) anymore than the pre-Galileo folks thinking the sun revolved around the earth made it true.

There IS eternal truth, a fact that the post-modern secular world denies.

You seem to think the Catholic Church can "modify" eternal truths, but it can no more do so than it can make 1+1 equal 3.

It can modify its teachings and its requirements, and by doing so it may move closer to or farther away from God's eternal truth, but it can not alter the eternal truth itself.

They have done polls on gay marriage--but I don't recall any specifically dealing with Robinson prior to his vote.

The slippery slope of the discussion as Patrick raised, is that we have advocates in society that see government as some kind of arbitrator of individual rights--a failing premise, for as government continues to afford some rights to some, it diminishes those of others.

The argument is always couched in those terms instead of debates of civil society, that is, what is best for the longevity and health of a nation.

Carried out in the issue of homosexuality which Patrick is focusing on--that will eventually mean that the rights of those holding religious views can only be infringed. Witness Canada and examples in Europe where free speech is ruled a "lesser" right because of a governmental and therefore "authoritative" preference to the right of individuals to live without ever being offended.

I would assume that if Patrick feels it is bigoted that most religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) believe that homosexuality is a sin, that he must also believe that our views on adultery, polygamy, bestiality, stealing, blasphemy are nothing more than bigoted views against the thief, the adulterer, etc.?

The revelation of Patrick's argument is truly that the gay marriage movement is not about hospital visitation or monetary considerations, but rather forcing the mosque, the church, the synagogue to affirm the behavior.

A shining city on a hill is a goal--and none of us is without sin. But being Christian is to always work towards that goal--not molding our "truth" to appease our desires. In other words, I wouldn't expect the church to accept adultery in an effort to be "Christian." This is the meaning of hating the sin and not the sinner.

No one is saying that any church should be forced into a certain doctrine, so I fail to appreciate how encouraging tolerance of homosexuality would "eventually mean that the rights of those holding religious views can only be infringed." I defend your right to hold your views, but at the same time I reserve the right to engage in free debate on those views.

That being said, a law protecting civil unions between same sex couples only infringes your "religious rights" to the extent that you believe your "eternal truths" should be involuntarily forced upon others who happen to have different beliefs. Only recently in modern history have homosexual relationships been able to exist openly. In fact, it was only a few years ago that the Supreme Court held that states cannot regulate consenting adults' private sexual behavior. These laws and mores were clearly based upon religious traditions and have all been watered down significantly. Why not legally allow two consenting adults of the same gender to enter into a legal union? I fail to see how granting a right to a civil union -- a right that heterosexual couples enjoy -- to gays somehow grants any group a preference. In reality, it only creates equality among groups -- unless of course you believe that Christians have a right to use their theology to define who has the legal right to enter into a civil union.

Other than offending your "eternal truths," I suppose you would say that allowing homosexual civil unions somehow degrades society -- however, this reasoning is circular -- it is Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who have unilaterally declared a certain activity to be sinful based upon their blind faith in some holy book written eons ago. So of course we cannot lend legal credence to this activity! Thus, a centuries old precept is carried on and on until overwhelming scientific evidence or just plain common sense finally overrides the closely held “eternal truths” that are so devoutly clung to

And please do not tell me that heterosexual unions should be given legal preference because they encourage procreation.

Again TomJ, you show that you believe government exists to play referee in your search for rights and expression.

How and why do governments exist at all in the first place?

Pick any issue--and your argument fails. Our system of precedence can only lead further down the path of legal remedy for those seeking "individual" expression and "rights to privacy."

First it's sodomy laws--and then's its gay marriage--and then where does it stop? Do any boundaries exist? Do you argue against incest? Bestiality? NAMBLA? If you do--you can only do so based on what your idea of moral limitations are--but again, you're left with no legal reason to do so--only that for you point A (gay marriage) is acceptable but point B(NAMBLA) isn't.

Eventually legal precendent will empower ever more deviant expression---there is no way not to. Witness the immediate and quick changes in law so quickly following the Lawrence case in Texas.

For example, on January 20, 2005, U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued an opinion which dismissed federal obscenity charges against Robert Zicari and his hard-core porn company Extreme Associates of Los Angeles. Lancaster said in his ruling "the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code...as a legitimate, let alone a compelling, state interest.

Amazing. What are laws based upon anyway?

Our country appealed to heaven in order to break our chains from England. Heaven, not the ACLU or a black robe.

Does the fact that our country's founders engaged in the egregious sin of "owning" other human beings and profited from their free labor undo the idea that we were founded on Christian principles?

I would point out that, as things stand now, the government does play referee in protecting rights that you cherish by defining marriage in a way that is consistent with your religious beliefs. Why do YOU need the government to intercede and protect your interests? Moreover, the US government effectively encourages Christianity by making all religious organizations tax exempt -- a huge federal government subsidy to support your way of life that does not extend to adherents of what you may call "secular humanism."

With regard to your slippery slope argument, it is not difficult to analyze each particular issue independently. For instance, laws against having sex with children are based upon the legal precept that a minor is incapable of consenting to sexual activity. That is clearly distinguishable from two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a loving relationship.

Aside from that, I agree that laws are based in part upon a moral code. However, I disagree that Christianity or the monotheistic tradition in general is the sole root for those moral values. If anything, those religious traditions have served to pervert justice throughout history -- religious ideals have been variously used to justify slavery, racism, bigotry, and the inhuman conquest of non-Christian civilizations.

Of course Christianity has evolved with human advancements in technology and political equality, but those advancements occurred despite Christianity, not because of it. And the continued insistence that currently religious doctrine is based upon "eternal truths" only serves to stem future human advancement. That was the point of my original post.

No it doesn't. If you will look, America's leaders were divided with regard to the issue of slavery. I acknowledge they were a minority, but Alexander Hamilton for instance, was one of the first abolitionists and released all his slaves--although he couldn't ever convince his wife to let go of hers. Washington too opposed slavery--and while a slave owner, his will stipulated the emancipation of his slaves upon his death. Arguments and discussions were being held prior to and during the Revolutionary War.

The decision was made to leave the slavery battle for another time---for many knew that a battle for or against slavery at that time would jeopardize the forming of our United States. Our founders nevertheless saw fit to say that all men were created equal--all men----not all "white" men.

Perhaps one could say that the civil war is testimony to the mistake they made, that is, perhaps a battle during the constitutional convention could have prevented the spilling of blood.

But please don't try to lead others into believing that laws that were erroneously applied to say that the color of one's skin determined if one was a whole person or not is the same as saying that laws against gay marriage are discriminatory.

It's the same strategy employed by the Associated Press in their tasteless story on Sen. Jeff Miller's divorce--that is because of the tragedy of Jeff's marriage--and it is a tragedy---that he is therefore unjustified in offering a bill to define marriage as an institution between a man and woman. It's absurd. You don't amputate your leg for an infection on your little toe.

Likewise, you don't discount our founders' appeal to heaven because they failed to address slavery.

The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

There is a reason why that period of the history of Western civilization is called "The Enlightenment." Previous reigious dogma was replaced by the use of rationality to establish an authoritative ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. Traditional religion played no role in that process.

Certianly the Founders wanted to protect the individual's freedom of religious thought, but they did not want a particular theology to dominate the public sphere.