■ 24 December 2011 | 5:00 AM
Celebration of sin
Re 'Female sailors share historic homecoming kiss,' front page, Dec. 22: I will be called a bigot, of course, but I almost vomited when I looked at the picture of the two female sailors sharing their historic homecoming kiss.I realize our country is changing, not for the better, but do we have to celebrate sin on the front page as a 'time-honored Navy tradition'? I retired from the Navy in 1999 after 20 years. Two homosexuals kissing on the pier was not a time-honored Navy tradition when I was in the Navy, nor should it ever be.
Who would have thought that what should be a reproach is now applauded and adored? May God have mercy on our nation and not treat us as our sins deserve.
Cary Paulk
Norfolk
Commenting on this article is open to verified users only | Learn how to become verified here
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Pastor Paulk's "Christianity"
isn't for me! While I was actually surprised to see the photo, when I read the story, it made me smile to see the military, again, leading the way to a more open society in honoring one of its most time-honored homecoming traditions. Jesus' gospel was INCLUSIONARY, not the exclusionary version preached by extreme religionists who CALL themselves 'Christian' but ignore Christ's true message. And I would remind Pastor Paulk that celebrating the safe homecoming of one of our sailors makes her no less a member of our Armed Forces executing HER mission than the fallen soldier who executed HIS but paid the ultimate price.
The Homecoming Kiss
What is the sin?
It is a kiss between two people who love each other. Where is the sin in that? And let's not pass this off on the Bible to justify our discriminating over what really is our unease at witnessing something that was previously hidden from society. Remember, marriage between blacks and whites, heck, in my parents' time marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics was taboo.
The sin is castigating and discriminating against people because we are uneasy about their lifestyles. Let's ease up. We'll get used to it and we will be a more loving and better society for accepting good people whose lifestyles are different from the majority.
While I don't support the LTE
I do support the Pilot for posting it. The press being free to post the free speech of others...
I love the USA.
If GOd were concerned, he could have rigged the drawing
The Sailors drew lots for the privilege of that ceremonial first homecoming kiss, and these sailors won.
Considering the long odds against that happening so soon after the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would seem to me that God either approved or at least wasn't so upset about it to intervene in the drawing.
So, perhaps we should see a God-given lesson in tolerance here.
There is a lot of real evil in the world to concern ourselves with, we don't need to get upset about such trivial things which are really none of our business.
Not So Fast...
I have the honor and the privilege of knowing quite a few sailors. God bless 'em, but He may have had little to do with the luck of the draw in this case.
That aside, I do not agree with you that Mr. Paulk raises a trivial issue.
Media attention and presentation of this particular kiss transmogrified it into a cultural symbol. Those who object to the public deconstruction of their own values and beliefs therefore have a legitimate beef.
The philosophy of personal liberty is well and good, but too frequently it ignores that fact that society also requires incubators for the development of citizens. Cultural norms, traditions, and institutions have the potential to serve this function.
When we allow media -- or education, for that matter -- to undermine values that have proved successful in the past for the development of citizens capable of shouldering personal liberty, we invite disaster.
We should therefore be cautious in dismissing those who, for spiritual reasons in particular, object to the dismantling of their philosophy.
that kiss was approved by god,
no matter how you may spin it.
I'm not dismissing anyone, I'm disagreeing
I just don't agree that stigmatizing homosexuals has particularly contributed to the success of our society. I can't offer comparisons from history, simply because there are no examples of a society tolerant of homosexuals in modern times to compare. Even the godless commies stigmatized homosexuals.
Which makes me think that it is something primitive within us, and not spiritual principles, that drives that hatred. It is hardly uncommon for people to conveniently assume that those things which make them uneasy do so because they are an affront to God's law.
I'm sure that was as true 4000 years ago as today.
So, I am guided by reason to conclude that homosexuality does not interfere with my rights or my life, and thus I have no reason to presume it evil.
OK
RE: "I just don't agree that stigmatizing homosexuals has particularly contributed to the success of our society."
I don't agree with that, either. And I admit that one can see the potential for stigmatizing homosexuals in Mr. Paulk's letter.
The dynamic I'm interested in is a little different.
What I notice is that people of faith who object to media portrayals that conflict with their beliefs are routinely criticized.
It is odd, even shocking, that this should occur. The faith-based institutions of our society have been extraordinarily successful in shaping many of the things people like most about America.
Faith-based institutions, for example, created the first national infrastructure of colleges and universities for African Americans, long before the Civil Rights movement came into being.
So, it is good to be against stigmatizing anyone. But should this not apply, equally, to people of faith and to those whose values are traditional in some historical sense?
If the answer is No, then we may build a world of personal liberties (I'm all for that!), but it could be a world that loses wisdom with every generation.
No beef. Just sayin'.
People of faith do not get a
People of faith do not get a free pass for bigotry.
As for faith-based institutions, of course they have done some good. They still do. Indeed, churches contribute to feeding the poor and needy this very Christmas.
But let us not forget that people of faith for a long, long time defended slavery because both the Old and New Testaments endorse the practice.
They also cited the curse of Ham in the book of Genesis to further justify their bigotry against people of color.
And people of faith also cited particular verses in the gospels to justify anti-Semitism.
Tolerance is a relatively modern concept; bigotry, on the contrary, is a traditional value.
And that in part is why it is rather silly to place tradition on a pedestal. Some parts of tradition are certainly valid today, but just because something is part of tradition does not make it necessarily applicable today. That is logically fallacious, an appeal to tradition.
There are lessons to be learned from the profound failure of faith-based institutions and other conservative institutions. First, be aware of the potential dangers when one uncritically places tradition above reason, and uncritically accepts what some ancient book or so-called authority says.
Although the LTE writer is a minister, all of us are lessened by his bigotry.
I couldn't have said it any better:
" If GOd were concerned, he could have rigged the drawing "