Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Gay Equality and the Law

Lies Told About the Proposed Hate Crime Statute

10 Comments

To Philip

James Madore did not write that blog, I did. My name is James Montalto. Madore wrote the Newsday article that I quoted.

God doesn't want us "as we are." He wants us to be like Him. We are all sinners - every single one of us. I'm saddened that you misunderstand me and attack me with words like bigot. And also say that I hate gay men and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Look Philip, like I said earlier. We are all sinners. Whether it be homosexual sex, fornication, theft, lying, murder, abortion, etc., all sin is sin. God wants us to be conformed to His image and not be conformed to this world.

He invites all people as they are - but wants to change them into His children. When I became a follower of Christ, I was a fornicator, an idolater, a drunkard, a reviler, etc., you name it, I probably did it.

Jesus Christ, the Savior and Creator of this world, transformed my life and gave me hope. He can give that hope to you too. He loves you and died for your sins and was resurrected to defeat death, once and for all. He paid the price for our sins, YOURS AND MINE, that day on the cross. Salvation is a free gift. We just have to take it. God bless.

Sincerely,

James Montalto

To James Montalto......

Firstly, thank you for correcting me regarding your name (it appeared to me that the person who wrote the blog was James Madore, based on the location of your name in the blog entry).

James -- the problem here is one of basic philosophy, not one of misperception. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS and therefore do not believe that the Bible (or any other religious text) is "the word of God" or in any way a reflection of divine will. As I have tried, repeatedly, to point out to those Americans who believe homosexuality to be an "abomination" or a "sin" -- I do not derive my values from any religious text, notwithstanding its age, prestige, or perceived holiness. Any attempt to influence me through reference to the Bible (or any other body of religious material) is therefore doomed from the outset.

Our disagreement is therefore not merely one of perception; it is actually a disagreement that has its roots in epistemology itself.

I have had many disagreements with religious people, who do not understand that any effort to influence me by citing religious teachings is doomed from the outset.

This is not to state that I am an atheist. I am not, in fact, an atheist.

I believe that this Universe was created by a force. I do not know what to call that force, and dislike usage of the word “God” precisely because of the religious connotations with which that word is freighted. I can only state that I believe that this Universe was created. However, I believe that human beings are pitifully insignificant in terms of our importance to, and relationship with, this force.

To give you some perspective on my worldview, consider the following:

The star that we call the Sun is a mediocre star located in a mediocre part of a mediocre galaxy. I employ the word “mediocre” when reflecting on such issues as the relative size, intensity, and other scientifically quantifiable attributes of the celestial bodies (and collections of celestial bodies) with which we are familiar, and of which we have some rudimentary understanding.

Our galaxy alone (the so-called “Milky Way”) contains between 200 billion and 500 billion stars (i.e. between 200,000,000,000 and 500,000,000,000 stars). Our Sun is in no way “special” or unique. It is a relatively small star within our galaxy. The best estimates are that there are about 100 billion galaxies (i.e. 100,000,000,000 galaxies) in the Universe. Some of these galaxies are of much greater size than is our galaxy, whereas other, so-called Ultra-Compact Dwarf galaxies may contain mere tens of millions of stars. The best estimates as to how many stars exist in the Universe place this number as at least 70 sextillion stars (i.e. at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or 7 ^ 22 stars). Many of these stars have their own planetary systems.

The above numbers defy comprehension. I believe, in the light of the sheer numbers, that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. However, many religions (Christianity included) imply that we are alone in the Universe, having been created, literally, “in God’s image.” This is arrogance writ large – arrogance of the same type as that which was on display when the Pope forced Galileo to recant his theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa. The history of the Christian religion is one of stifling anthropocentricism, in which humankind has been elevated above all other living beings. This is reflected in the belief of many people here in Townhall that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, and that the Universe was created within six days. The number of people on the Townhall message threads who take these numbers seriously and who believe that cosmologists, paleontologists, and physicists are all wrong scares me.

It is for these reasons that I have contempt for all forms of organized religion, and it is for these reasons that I reject the notion that the force that created the Universe shares human motivations. I do not pretend to know what happens to us when we die, but I certainly do not accept conventional religious dogma. To put it bluntly, I do not believe that Christ was the son of God or that people who do not believe in the Christian God are going to burn in a place called Hell. Although I believe that the Universe was created by a force, I find it impossible to impute human motives to that force. Although I am not at all religious, I believe in comporting myself in such a manner as not to harm other people and as not to deprive other people of their right to seek happiness on their own terms. In short, I embrace a secular humanist worldview, differing from secular humanists only in that I believe that a powerful force created this Universe, and that our identities (or, for want of a better word, our “souls”) may continue after we die. This is a challenging worldview, precisely because it does not permit me to rely on dogma of any kind (salvation through Christ included) when making ethical and moral choices. In short, every decision that I make in life should be informed by concepts of reason, justice, and morality. Whereas a religious person is insulated from the world by a sincere and genuine belief in a set of core assumptions and principles that, if followed, will guarantee salvation of his or her “soul,” I believe it necessary to avoid dogma and religious teaching, and to navigate my way through life taking care at every step not to harm others and not to deprive others of their choice to live their lives according to their own value systems. This is an extremely tough praxis (life stance), precisely because every decision I make is on me.

Do you understand, in the light of the above, why I simply cannot relate to arguments that reference biblical teaching?

Some Christians insist (in relation to homosexuality) that they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” This attitude is patronizing in the extreme, and it fails to take into consideration the fact that the so-called “sin” and the so-called “sinner” are inextricably intertwined. The so-called “sin” is a direct reflection of a core component of the identity of the so-called “sinner.” More relevant, however, is the fact that I am not religious and do not answer to anybody who engages in pious Bible-thumping. We do not live in a theocracy, and I deeply resent these attempts to force a particular religious dogma down my throat, particularly when these attempts are made by people who know nothing about me or about my life.

You state that you are not a bigot – but in your response, you once again compare homosexuality to theft, deceit, and murder. What I have tried to explain to you is that I do not believe that my sexual orientation, or actual expression of my sexual orientation, is wrong, evil, or depraved. It is as much a part of my identity as are such factors as my race, my bone structure, and my height. My sexual orientation is not something that I chose, contrary to the beliefs of so many people in this forum. It is a part of who I am. I find it nothing less than outrageous and disgusting that you still insist on comparing expression of my sexual orientation to murder, theft, and deceit. I do not rob people of their possessions and their right to property. I do not deceive people. I do not commit the ultimate act of theft, which is to take the life of another human being. The fact that I am gay in no way infringes upon any liberty interest that you enjoy. My being gay in no way interferes with your right to seek happiness on your own terms. It is this that is the most disturbing to me – the condemnation of a facet of my identity merely because you feel uncomfortable with that aspect of who I am.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Dear Philip,

I understand that you are not "religious" and do not believe the Bible is the word of God. Whether or not you derive your values from the Bible is irrelevant. However, just to completely eliminate it from the conversation just because you don't believe in it is unfair. Just because a person doesn't believe in something, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true.

Look, it's obvious that you are very intelligent and I appreciate your honesty regarding your presuppositions. I have mine and you have yours. I look at things through a Biblical worldview and as you have stated you have a secular humanist worldview.

Your reference to Biblical creation, 6 days, 6,000 years, etc. and the supposed self-centeredness of those who believe that God created mankind originally in His image is something that I do, personally believe. I didn't always believe this. I was brought through public school and a secular university and the point was driven home about evolution and a supposed billion year old universe. I didn't come to this conclusion blindly and because I was taught this in sunday school. I never attended sunday school and I never attended church growing up.

Before the 1800s, the age of the earth was thought to be less than 10,000 years old. It wasn't until Darwin's book that people started to believe that the earth was old. Over that time period, the earth has miraculously aged about 4-6 billion years. Evidence suggests otherwise. For instance, at the right of the moon moving away from earth - millions of years ago, not billions, the moon would have been touching the earth wreaking havoc upon the tides and killing everything.

Let me explain my point of view to you. I believe that originally man was created in God's image, that through disobedience sin and death came into the world and that Jesus Christ came to restore that once right relationship that existed at the beginning. We are all born as sinners and created in man's image, no longer in God's image because that was lost in the beginning. Since that time, defects have been introduced into our genetics. I was born with a shoulder that was weak and had a tendency to pop out of its socket. I didn't choose to be born that way - I was. As far as homosexuality, I don't know whether it's a choice, people are born that way or if it's different for different people. I wholeheartedly believe you when you tell me that you were born that way. I don't believe you are lying. With that said, I'm not saying that there is a gay gene or not. I don't know. I do know one hasn't been isolated yet.

I am a Christian (obviously), but I don't hate you nor am I a bigot. What I do hate is the so-called "Christians" who hold up signs that say "God hates fags" or something despicable like that. That is horrendous and it does a disservice to true Christians. Much like those who blow up abortion clinics in the name of God. That is not godly. It is despicable and I hate that.

Also, I have heard the argument about Christians being self-centred, the size of the galaxy and the belief that humans are the only ones in the universe. I too, believe that to be true. All of the components that it takes for us to exist are here on this planet and scientists have not been able to find any other that comes even close to being able to sustain life...the oxygen, the elements, the distance from the sun, etc. Did you know that if we were 5% closer to the sun we would burn up? Did you know that if we were 5% further we would freeze?

I want you to understand something else of where I am coming from. When I said sin is sin, I meant it. But that doesn't mean I am equating homosexuality with murder. People believe that if what they do doesn't hurt another then it is okay. But there are sins against God as well and sins against our own bodies.

I don't think that stealing a pack of gum is equivalent to murder. I also believe that each crime needs a punishment that is suitable. Stealing a pack of gum? A slap on the wrist. Murder? Life in jail or the death penalty. That's how we look at crimes and there is nothing wrong with that. That is human judgment. But to God, His judgment states that all sin is sin. Will he punish those who have murdered, raped or child molested more than he would someone who stole a pack of gum? Yes. He will, but the Bible says that if we break one law then we are guilty of them all. That's why we were given the 10 commandments - to show us the impossibility for us to keep them and the need for a savior.

Question: Where do you adopt your moral code from? How do you know right from wrong? The answer is easy. It's your conscience. And as you know, conscience means "with knowledge." We all have the knowledge of right and wrong in us from when we are young children. Where does that come from? Who gave it to us? The Bible tells us God wrote it upon our hearts.

As far as your statement of "love the sinner - hate the sin" not being intertwined. I believe you can separate the two. Some of my friends don't believe what I believe. They still like to have sex with random girls and get wasted all the time. Do I hate them? No, of course not. I love them, but I hate what they do. So I no longer hang out with them when they do those things. I hang out with them to do other activities. Do I hate them? Do I judge them? Do I condemn them? No. I can't because I'm a sinner just like them. I can tell them what the Bible says, but I can't force it on them and I don't try to. I won't be held accountable for them. I will be held accountable for myself and that's it.

The greatest act of loving the sinner - hating the sin was performed by Jesus Christ when the masses wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Then after they all left because they knew that they were filled with sin and they were hypocrites, Jesus said to the woman, "Where are your accusers? Is there no one here to condemn you? I don't condemn you either." Then he said, "Go, and sin no more." Jesus loved her, saved her and then told her to stop sinning.

That's Jesus Christ's standard. Christians are to follow that example and not condemn anyone. In God's eyes, we are all worthy of condemnation. Unfortunately many professing Christians are pious, judgmental and not true reflections of Jesus Christ.

God bless you, Philip.

Sincerely,

James Montalto

*

should have read "at the rate of the moon moving away..."

I wish we could edit our posts

also

there is a DVD entitled "The Privileged Planet" that is done from an evolutionary worldview. Those scientists who made it believe the conditions for a planet to sustain life are only found on earth. If you get a chance, check it out.

James -- your point of view......

James – you are absolutely and without qualification entitled to believe anything that you want. However, it is clear from your message that your “life stance” is very different from mine. While I enjoy discussion and debate, there are times when two people are so different in terms of the core beliefs to which they subscribe, that the best course of action for them to take is to agree to disagree. I think that this is what we have to do here – we have to respect each other’s right to their beliefs and agree to “live and let live” in terms of our attitudes towards each other. It is clear that you respect my point of view, and I hope that you know that I respect your point of view too.

Quite aside from this approach to living our respective lives, something interesting and thought-provoking does come to mind when reading through our exchange. It pertains to the nature of sexual orientation, and towards the manner in which sexual orientation is fixed. Many gay activists believe that discovery of a gene, or combination of genes, that codes for sexual orientation will solve all of the problems that gay people encounter in life, because such a discovery (they believe) will force Christians to accept the fact that being gay is not a matter of personal choice. I do not agree with these activists, and I fervently hope that the biological basis for sexual orientation is NOT discovered any time soon.

My reason for hoping that the genesis of sexual orientation is NOT discovered any time soon is simple – I believe that fundamentalist Christian organizations would immediately seize such a discovery and proclaim that science had discovered the gene, or combination of genes, responsible for the “illness” or “disease” of homosexual sexual orientation. The prospects are very frightening – should such thinking gain the upper hand and influence the scientific discourse, the genesis of sexual orientation will be reframed in terms of the “pathogenesis” of homosexuality. Attempts will then be made to “cure” homosexuality through “gene therapy,” and testing for the “genetic defect” will result in the termination of the vast majority of pregnancies during which it is discovered that the fetus carries the “disease.” I am pro-choice, and remain pro-choice despite this possibility. However, I acknowledge that my own stance towards abortion and choice could result in a horrible outcome. I would never be able to forgive a friend or family member who chooses to terminate a pregnancy because the baby will otherwise be born gay. To put this issue even more starkly – if given the choice between being forced to accept “gene therapy” or being executed, I would opt for the latter without a moment’s hesitation.

That may shock or surprise you, but I mean what I have just written, with utter sincerity and conviction. If given the choice between being “cured” of homosexuality and being executed, I would choose to die.

I would make this choice because my sexual orientation is a core component of my identity, and I would not want to live without this component. Robbing me of my sexual orientation would be worse to me than death itself.

I believe that, faced with the ability to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus, most pro-life Christians would carve out an exception to their anti-choice philosophy and would insist that God would condone abortion in cases where the fetus carries the gay gene. Some fundamentalist Christians would even assert that their values were being tested by God, and that they would be undergoing an object lesson in faith, or a test of their commitment to their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. In short, I believe that gay activists who anxiously seek to prove the genetic or hormonal basis of sexual orientation are unwittingly participating in and colluding in uncovering what could become the justification for a form of pre-emptive “gender cleansing” similar to “ethnic cleansing.”

I am actually surprised by the fact that organizations such as the “Family Research Council” (FRC), the “American Family Association” (AFA) etc. have not yet seen the potential “benefit” of adopting such an approach to identification of the cause of homosexuality. Perhaps their think-tanks have in fact already considered this, and are keeping this option in reserve for the times following the identification of the “gay gene” or combination of genes.

I believe that the biological basis of homosexuality will, however, continue to elude scientists and researchers for quite some time. I believe that the genesis of sexual orientation is more complex than mere expression of a gene (or combination of genes). I believe that other factors, which cannot be replicated or identified, are at work in this regard. Nevertheless, it is my sincere hope that this research does not result in the identification of the genetic (or other biological) basis for homosexuality until such time as our society has progressed to the extent that acceptance of gay people as full and equal participants in society is complete and unqualified.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Dear Philip,

Before we bid each other farewell, I just wanted to respond to one paragraph that you have written.

You wrote:
"I believe that, faced with the ability to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus, most pro-life Christians would carve out an exception to their anti-choice philosophy and would insist that God would condone abortion in cases where the fetus carries the gay gene. Some fundamentalist Christians would even assert that their values were being tested by God, and that they would be undergoing an object lesson in faith, or a test of their commitment to their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. In short, I believe that gay activists who anxiously seek to prove the genetic or hormonal basis of sexual orientation are unwittingly participating in and colluding in uncovering what could become the justification for a form of pre-emptive “gender cleansing” similar to “ethnic cleansing.”

This is wholeheartedly false, in my case, and I would argue wholeheartedly false in cases of true followers of Christ. The Bible states one of the seven things that God hates is "hands that she innocent blood." The 6th commandment also tells us not to commit murder. To murder an innocent baby based on a certain gene or a genetic defect is despicable. If anyone ever were to do that and justify it using the Bible, they would not be true followers of Jesus Christ. They would be no worse than Adolf Hitler and currently, that madman in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.

I wish you all the best, Philip. God bless you.

Sincerely,

James Montalto

*

hands that *SHED innocent blood...

I really should start proofreading before I post.

Thank you James......

Dear James,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I do hope that you will come back to this blog and visit some of the other issues that I intend to discuss. You may be interested in an essay that I wrote some time ago that I intend to publish on this blog -- this essay describes the manner in which the US Supreme Court has utilized the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in recent, pro-gay decisions.

Please send me the link to your blog so that I can visit you, if that's OK with you!

Regards,


PHILIP CHANDLER

Hi Philip,

Here is the link to my blog that you requested. http://jamesmontalto.townhall.com

God's blessings to you. Take care.

Sincerely,

James Montalto