Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[mcteague]

Ah yes, ignoring uppity minorities and keeping your boot on their neck always smooths things over if you just give it enough time… I concede it does work for a time. It worked on black folks for about 90 years after the Civil War. Assuming that time scale holds and we use, say, the Stonewall Riots as the zero year for the gays, that leaves you, at the outside, 49 years that your scheme might work. Of course, that’s an outside estimate, since gays have many social, financial and organizational advantages which were not available to black Americans in the Civil Rights struggle.

Of course another downside to “standing firm” is that costs of maintaining oppression always rise exponentially, not in linear fashion, so the final years of the program will be much more painful and less productive for you. Still, it’s your broom. If you think you can push back the incoming tide of justice with it, rock on…

We should remember this is Catholic answers; not the Spartacus league. Many people here are going to be a bit conservative and traditional. I used to be a lot like you. But I have found impassioned tirades rarely persuade. I find many of the views here as disagreeable as you. But it is often best to listen to peoples fears and concerns and try to show them where they are wrong. Someone who writes as the person you responded to does not want to even consider other points of view. It is a waste of time to try. But in doing so you can undermine your ability to influence other people that may be reading. For they will just dismiss you with quaint remarks about the passion, idealism, and naivety of youth. It is better to persuade then to try to show up a particular person

 

[nguirado]

I don’t equate racial inequality with a logical distinction between men and women. Dennis Prager gives the example that whereas having separate black and white bathrooms is wrong, separate female and male bathrooms is not.

Since I don’t equate the two, and therefore dismiss any arguments that arise from that analogy, I maintain that there are no good arguments for SSM.

Remember, conservative arguments are harder to articulate than ones based on emotions. It’s harder to explain to people why Sally and Mary can’t have their dream wedding than it is to list the ways society needs traditional marriage.

Once traditional arguments catch up and people realize that it will impact all of society, making outlaws out of dissenters, I think support will peak at a minority and may even decline.

 

[kenofken]

We should remember this is Catholic answers; not the Spartacus league. Many people here are going to be a bit conservative and traditional. I used to be a lot like you. But I have found impassioned tirades rarely persuade. I find many of the views here as disagreeable as you. But it is often best to listen to peoples fears and concerns and try to show them where they are wrong. Someone who writes as the person you responded to does not want to even consider other points of view. It is a waste of time to try. But in doing so you can undermine your ability to influence other people that may be reading. For they will just dismiss you with quaint remarks about the passion, idealism, and naivety of youth. It is better to persuade then to try to show up a particular person

I harbor no delusions about persuading most folks who have taken an stand on this issue on this forum in particular. In the small spaces of reasoned disagreement and legitimate fears, I attempt to persuade. When appeals are made in poor logic, ill will or which ignore ugly parallels in our country’s past, a bit of showing up is in order. It’s not a personal attack, it’s a way of putting the argument under the unforgiving cold light of history’s electron microscope and seeing what it’s really made of. Or if you prefer a different analogy, giving a good rap to the shiny steel casting of their argument and seeing if it rings true or has rotten cracks and holes beneath the surface.

Look, there’s room for debate on the subject, but if someone comes out and asserts that “we just need to keep these people in their place and keep the courts from stirring things up,” people ought to be aware of the historical baggage attached to that and see what sort of legacy they really might be signing their names to…

At 40, I have precious little youth, naivete or idealism left, but I do have a bit of fire in the belly when it comes to justice, and not only for gays. Few people here are likely to believe it, but I’d be tilting at the windmill just as hard if we had a Cromwellian or Islamic majority abusing the power of the state to oppress Catholics…

 

[colmcille1]

Hi kenofken.
May I ask you: is there any chance that you could argue your case without resorting to so-called historical parallels?
The problem with your approach is that you want to make a grand sweeping “historical” rush-type argument. You erroneously believe that this somehow lends a gravitas to your statements. It does no such thing.
It simply demonstrates what you fancy as weighty debate.
It lessens the stand-alone significance of any other historical examples you choose to somehow forify what is, in essence, a weak argument.
In short, it is a paper-thin tactic which is easily seen through.
Indeed, even in your reply to me viz church and state you mention that those atheist tyrants are reason enough to argue in favour of the separation of said institutions.
Since we are dealing with cases in extremis can’t you see that the Church has always championed the moral right of the individual under God against the scourge of an atheistic mindset that sees said individual as no more than an economic unit?
Yet because the Church will always fight for the rights of the individual under God, this does not mean that it is offering a free ride. There is a price to pay. But it is not, as other posters see it, a punitive charge. No, it is, rather, an obedience to the joyous teachings of said Church. It is when we are fully conversant with the depth of meaning of said teachings that we can experience what freedom under God truly means. And that freedom far exceeds anything cooked up in the secular world.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[nguirado]

If gay is like black, then Christian is like racist.

 

[Betterave]

Hi kenofken.
May I ask you: is there any chance that you could argue your case without resorting to so-called historical parallels?
The problem with your approach is that you want to make a grand sweeping “historical” rush-type argument. You erroneously believe that this somehow lends a gravitas to your statements. It does no such thing.
It simply demonstrates what you fancy as weighty debate.
It lessens the stand-alone significance of any other historical examples you choose to somehow forify what is, in essence, a weak argument.
In short, it is a paper-thin tactic which is easily seen through.

posted by nguirado:
If gay is like black, then Christian is like racist.

Yes and yes. From your first post on, kenofken, anyone with any critical thinking skills on this forum has had grounds to identify you as an emotional, irrational anti-religious bigot and has probably only been reinforced in their view that SSM proponents are that kind of people, who are sad, but really not worth listening to (other than as an object of human sympathy). You (and others) should listen to mcteague on this one.

 

[Betterave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by colmcille1
I say it is illegitimate because it undermines the true sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

And therein lies your fatal error. For the argument about gay marriage is not about a ‘sacrament’, rather it is about a legal status. Fortunately, our government is secular and does not deal in sacraments.

This point is correct: this is not and cannot be a debate about the *sacrament *of marriage. That’s a red herring.

 

[Betterave]

A few years ago I was watching the old movie “Inherit the wind” with Spencer Tracey playing the Clarence Darrow type character. Anyway there is this one character; the preacher. Early in the movie he all fire and brimstone; yelling about sin and damnation. But later on there is this scene where his daughter tells him that she is in love with the man on trial for teaching evolution. Well he just pretty much falls to pieces. But in a quite more personal way. He is down on knees begging God to forgive his daughter. Tears streaming down face because he feels he let her down, and he knows she is going to hell because of his failings.
Now I don’t particularly believe in creationism. But the fact is this preacher character clearly does. He really believes in the damnation of hell for sinners. It does not seem to me that should be thinking about how much smarter I may or may not be than this guy. Or which conception of creation is most logically valid. I empathize and feel for this mans pain and suffering because I see that it is real. I extend myself to see the world from his eyes.

To me, one of the morals of this story has to be that we have no reason to accept what someone says just because he is undergoing pain and suffering - this is an antecedent reason for being suspicious of what he says.

You *should *also be aware that there are faithful gay Christians too, and that they have undergone plenty of pain and suffering too, but understand this pain and suffering as having been caused by those who want to promote the normalization and banalization of homo-sex-based relationships. There is nothing to prevent you from really listening to their stories and feeling their pain too, which ought to neutralize, to some extent, that which you hear from the other side.

I am not sure if we really need to come up with some proof why gays should be considered an oppressed minority. Unless we are talking about treating them differently, as in a special way from other people. To me Gay marriage does not do that. It simply treats them as other people are already treated. It seems that it should be a rather small thing to give.

Gays are not an oppressed minority, in any interesting sense, and gay marriage clearly does treat them differently: it declares that homosexual people need not meet the same criterion as everyone else for getting married (that of having a sexually complementary relationship) - or alternately, it declares that their interests (as these are perceived by the vocal minority of agitators for SSM) override others’ interests such that it is appropriate to radically redefine ‘marriage’.

 

[Betterave]

The argument about definitional change is interesting. We know that the meanings of words change. There are few proscriptive dictionaries. Some resistance to definitional change is good. We do want things to actually have meaning. This is all part of a natural dialectical process. This is often difficult and painful.
A change in the definition of marriage for the broader world would not necessarily change it for Catholics. Well probably it might eventually.
But to what degree is it appropriate to deny others the right to define themselves and their relationships using language that they have as much right to as we do. It presumes that gays are what postmodern and postcolonial theorists call “the other”. It presumes a supremacy in the authority to define marriage in the straight and Christian world. I question whether this is a proper attitude.

This is fine rhetoric, but it can just as easily be turned around on you. Can you see that? You are presuming Catholics and others as “the other” and doing nothing to answer your own (apparently question-begging) rhetorical question: to what degree is it appropriate to deny others the right to define themselves and their relationships using language that they have as much right to as we do?

Catholics, believing their authority comes from God are I think particularly prone to that kind of thinking. One of the criticisms I would make of Catholic reasoning is that because of the way they view God, and the the foundational beliefs of their epistemological systems they are often guilty of the error of bifurcation in their analysis. The idea that a thing could have more than one essence or essential purpose, and that the absence of one of them does not exclude a thing from being grouped within a particular definition seems almost beyond them.

This sounds like a priori (i.e., bad) social science to me. I think it is inaccurate and obviously biased - not to mention very presumptive of Catholics as “the other.” Is there anything in reality actually grounding this view?

 

[kenofken]

Hi kenofken.
May I ask you: is there any chance that you could argue your case without resorting to so-called historical parallels?
The problem with your approach is that you want to make a grand sweeping “historical” rush-type argument. You erroneously believe that this somehow lends a gravitas to your statements. It does no such thing.
It simply demonstrates what you fancy as weighty debate.
It lessens the stand-alone significance of any other historical examples you choose to somehow forify what is, in essence, a weak argument.
In short, it is a paper-thin tactic which is easily seen through.
Indeed, even in your reply to me viz church and state you mention that those atheist tyrants are reason enough to argue in favour of the separation of said institutions.
Since we are dealing with cases in extremis can’t you see that the Church has always championed the moral right of the individual under God against the scourge of an atheistic mindset that sees said individual as no more than an economic unit?
Yet because the Church will always fight for the rights of the individual under God, this does not mean that it is offering a free ride. There is a price to pay. But it is not, as other posters see it, a punitive charge. No, it is, rather, an obedience to the joyous teachings of said Church. It is when we are fully conversant with the depth of meaning of said teachings that we can experience what freedom under God truly means. And that freedom far exceeds anything cooked up in the secular world.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I think the examples of Mao and Stalin make excellent arguments for the need to separate church and state. No, even something more basic than that, the need to keep out of government hands any agenda or tools which would allow it to dictate a person’s relationship with the divine, whether that be the state and its figureheads or even a church loved by a majority of the land’s people. If your faith is freely chosen, it is indeed “obedience to the joyous teachings” of the church. If it is not freely chosen but merely enforced in law by a government, it is a tyranny plain and simple.

If people don’t like my pointing out historical parallels with other civil rights struggles, tough. History is full of inconvenient parallels, and dismissing them, or me won’t remove the stain. It’s not a matter of equating Christianity with racism and the fact that you may have better intentions in your heart than the guys who threw bricks at King’s marchers also has nothing to do with it. The motivations are almost immaterial. Every argument used to deny gay people equal right was used, word for word, syllable for syllable by opponents of racial integration and intermarriage. All of it was done a stone’s throw from my lifetime and well within the lifetime of most of the people reading here, I suspect.

To a man, they too argued that they didn’t hate anyone, they were just upholding God’s will and divine order. Liberal activists and judges just wanted to stir up things with a societal institution they just didn’t understand, and it would have destructive effects on society. They considered themselves very prayerful, well meaning Christian people as you do. I susect (hope) most of you would agree they were mistaken.

Yet when you use their script in argument, I’m supposed to pretend the parallels don’t exist, and if I don’t, then calling me an emotional jerk and simply denying any connection will all make it go away? If I’m bright enough to see it, anyone can. Tens of millions of Catholics in this country and around the world can see it. Are they anti-religious bigots as well?

Someone will inevitably point out that “no, our reasons are qualitatively different than the Jim Crow guys because we have good theological grounds for our stance.” And you do. But so did they.

If these two civil rights struggles really are apples and oranges without relying on blind acceptance of sectarian theology or silliness about “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” I welcome it. There may be a whole new vista I’m not seeing. But from where I stand now, the apple and orange are really just two rotten apples. One has some orange rind glued to the outside of it, but that doesn’t make it an orange. (And pointing that out makes me a horrible immature person, apparently).

 

[colmcille1]

This point is correct: this is not and cannot be a debate about the *sacrament *of marriage. That’s a red herring.

Nope, it isn’t a red herring and I’ll tell you why.
When I saw the word “Church” in the OP, I reasonably assumed that the Church would be discussed. The same goes for the word “marriage”. Therefore I am discussing it. The fact that proponents of SSM cannot and will not deal with a religious argument is not my problem. I do not bow to some argument that tries to hijack language. However, I will have no hesitation in pointing out to said proponents how deeply Catholics believe in their Church.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[colmcille1]

I think the examples of Mao and Stalin make excellent arguments for the need to separate church and state. No, even something more basic than that, the need to keep out of government hands any agenda or tools which would allow it to dictate a person’s relationship with the divine, whether that be the state and its figureheads or even a church loved by a majority of the land’s people. If your faith is freely chosen, it is indeed “obedience to the joyous teachings” of the church. If it is not freely chosen but merely enforced in law by a government, it is a tyranny plain and simple.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply(even if you have lumped me in with another poster’s comments)
No matter how you dress up your separation of Church/state argument it is merely an anti-relgious rant at the end of the day. The Church is duty-bound to argue for the moral rights of the individual under God. Do you really believe that the present Church is a potential (if not full-blown) tyrant because it speaks up for social justice around the world?

If people don’t like my pointing out historical parallels with other civil rights struggles, tough. History is full of inconvenient parallels, and dismissing them, or me won’t remove the stain. It’s not a matter of equating Christianity with racism and the fact that you may have better intentions in your heart than the guys who threw bricks at King’s marchers also has nothing to do with it. The motivations are almost immaterial. Every argument used to deny gay people equal right was used, word for word, syllable for syllable by opponents of racial integration and intermarriage. All of it was done a stone’s throw from my lifetime and well within the lifetime of most of the people reading here, I suspect.

I am not au fait with every “word for word, syllable for syllable” argument in those cases you instanced but what I do know and will vehemently argue for is love for my fellow man be he black, white , gay, straight. This love is the recognition of the potentiality of every human to follow Him.

To a man, they too argued that they didn’t hate anyone, they were just upholding God’s will and divine order. Liberal activists and judges just wanted to stir up things with a societal institution they just didn’t understand, and it would have destructive effects on society. They considered themselves very prayerful, well meaning Christian people as you do. I susect (hope) most of you would agree they were mistaken.

**Believe me, I don’t consider myself in any light. Only He knows who I am. **

Yet when you use their script in argument, I’m supposed to pretend the parallels don’t exist, and if I don’t, then calling me an emotional jerk and simply denying any connection will all make it go away? If I’m bright enough to see it, anyone can. Tens of millions of Catholics in this country and around the world can see it. Are they anti-religious bigots as well?

The Catholic concept of love carries with it an instructive impetus. Why are you so ostensibly afraid of this?

Someone will inevitably point out that “no, our reasons are qualitatively different than the Jim Crow guys because we have good theological grounds for our stance.” And you do. But so did they.

As above.

If these two civil rights struggles really are apples and oranges without relying on blind acceptance of sectarian theology or silliness about “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” I welcome it. There may be a whole new vista I’m not seeing. But from where I stand now, the apple and orange are really just two rotten apples. One has some orange rind glued to the outside of it, but that doesn’t make it an orange. (And pointing that out makes me a horrible immature person, apparently).

Well, I certainly don’t subscribe to your last statement.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

Nope, it isn’t a red herring and I’ll tell you why.
When I saw the word “Church” in the OP, I reasonably assumed that the Church would be discussed. The same goes for the word “marriage”. Therefore I am discussing it. The fact that proponents of SSM cannot and will not deal with a religious argument is not my problem. I do not bow to some argument that tries to hijack language. However, I will have no hesitation in pointing out to said proponents how deeply Catholics believe in their Church.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

But the Church herself does not take your view, namely, that the state’s interest in marriage must be in marriage as a sacrament. You’re only putting stumbling blocks in the way to understanding the Church’s own position if you insist that this is all about marriage as a sacrament, i.e., as a specifically religious reality.

(And these stumbling blocks have been very ‘effective’, it seems, in the case of kenofken.)

 

[colmcille1]

But the Church herself does not take your view, namely, that the state’s interest in marriage must be in marriage as a sacrament. You’re only putting stumbling blocks in the way to understanding the Church’s own position if you insist that this is all about marriage as a sacrament, i.e., as a specifically religious reality.

(And these stumbling blocks have been very ‘effective’, it seems, in the case of kenofken.)

Excuse me, sir, but are you not missing the point here?
If the state sanctions gay “marriage”, is that not a diminution of traditional marriage which is a sacrament? As far as I can see, this sanctioning is the thin end of the wedge. The Church (through weak leadership) may pay lip service to the vested interest of the state but it will get one rude awakening when it has to fight against an all-out assault on traditional marriage. That assault will begin in earnest when/if gay “marriage” gets the green light.

I am speaking from an Irish perspective. It has been strongly suggested among the media busybodies that a well-known gay activist may run for the presidency of this country.
This person happens to be a senator; if he gets in watch the gay agenda take centre stage.

I think ordinary Catholics in this country could learn a thing or two from our articulate and vocal American cousins when it comes to standing up for the Faith.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[mcteague]

So what you are saying here is that the serpent’s act of tempting Eve was morally praiseworthy. The principle you are implying is that if I can present someone with an occasion of sin, I should do so, since this gives that person more freedom. Right?

This view betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Christian notion of freedom. Promoting structures of sin stirs up our disordered desires and reduces our authentic freedom, which is only found in the cultivation of virtue. Cultivation of vice is destructive of true freedom.

p.s. MarkAnthony: that is one reason why they “don’t have a right”. The more general reason is that the purpose of government is to promote the common good, not to promote structures of sin or indifference towards it.

I think you missed the last part of my post where I said one would be obligated to explain and persuade the person to correct moral action. The dilemma for the Catholic is created by the fear that simply providing information one might be encouraging sin.

But that is not really true. It might be true if you don’t take the additional step. If you have children that reach the age of sexual development, you would explain the moral choices available to them. You would provide the information and hope to lead them down the correct moral path. You would not have them fitted with chastity devices in order to avoid their possible fall into sin. Is there some risk. Yes. But no other real choice makes sense, except in certain special cases.

Isn’t it be better for people to reach correct moral choices through their own reason then either by coercion or ignorance?

 

[Betterave]

Excuse me, sir, but are you not missing the point here?
If the state sanctions gay “marriage”, is that not a diminution of traditional marriage which is a sacrament?

No, this is not a diminution of sacramental marriage. It is harmful to society and a corruption of the secular institution of marriage, but the state does not have the power to corrupt the sacraments. Give God Almighty some credit! (Granted it may be the thin edge of the wedge for a new way to attack the Church, but the issue is bigger than that.)

 

[Betterave]

I think you missed the last part of my post where I said one would be obligated to explain and persuade the person to correct moral action. The dilemma for the Catholic is created by the fear that simply providing information one might be encouraging sin.

But that is not really true. It might be true if you don’t take the additional step. If you have children that reach the age of sexual development, you would explain the moral choices available to them. You would provide the information and hope to lead them down the correct moral path. You would not have them fitted with chastity devices in order to avoid their possible fall into sin. Is there some risk. Yes. But no other real choice makes sense, except in certain special cases.

Isn’t it be better for people to reach correct moral choices through their own reason then either by coercion or ignorance?

I don’t see how either coercion or ignorance are likely to apply. In any case, one point you may not have considered is that in the Catholic world-view we suffer from concupiscence, disordered desires. Catholics absolutely do not face a dilemma, as you suggest. We recognize that our disordered desires have a life of their own and that we have no need whatsoever to suggest to others that they should consider the satisfaction of those desires as just “one of the options you need to consider, but then, I really recommend, reject.”

Think of an analogy: do you think that we ought to teach business students how to commit fraud (reminding them, of course, that they ought not to), just so they can make a free choice about it? Such analogies are very easily multiplied.

 

[mcteague]

I don’t see how either coercion or ignorance are likely to apply. In any case, one point you may not have considered is that in the Catholic world-view we suffer from concupiscence, disordered desires. Catholics absolutely do not face a dilemma, as you suggest. We recognize that our disordered desires have a life of their own and that we have no need whatsoever to suggest to others that they should consider the satisfaction of those desires as just “one of the options you need to consider, but then, I really recommend, reject.”

Think of an analogy: do you think that we ought to teach business students how to commit fraud (reminding them, of course, that they ought not to), just so they can make a free choice about it? Such analogies are very easily multiplied.

The problem with discussing or arguing that way is that it presumes an absolute certainty. It presumes that the Catholic view, assuming a single view can be articulated, is unquestionable correct. It is just nit in my nature to not consider that I could be wrong. And yes I do know that Catholics don’t argue every position that way; only some. I am just very uncomfortable with presumed superiority. But then again, I don’t think I am Gods representitive on earth. It would seem the sin of hubris a great risk.

 

[Betterave]

The problem with discussing or arguing that way is that it presumes an absolute certainty. It presumes that the Catholic view, assuming a single view can be articulated, is unquestionable correct. It is just nit in my nature to not consider that I could be wrong. And yes I do know that Catholics don’t argue every position that way; only some. I am just very uncomfortable with presumed superiority. But then again, I don’t think I am Gods representitive on earth. It would seem the sin of hubris a great risk.

Sorry, I don’t know what you’re referring to here with this seemingly random string of pure assertions. Is it or is it not “just knit in your nature to not consider that you could be wrong”? If it is not and you do consider this possibility, is there any formal structure to such considerations, or do they just consist of occasional random formal conjectures about the abstract possibility: “well, yes - I could be wrong, it is a logical possibility…”? (I think the latter is usually the case for people who are fond of the kind of rhetoric you have used here.)

 

[thevoiceofone]

The problem with discussing or arguing that way is that it presumes an absolute certainty. It presumes that the Catholic view, assuming a single view can be articulated, is unquestionable correct. It is just nit in my nature to not consider that I could be wrong. And yes I do know that Catholics don’t argue every position that way; only some. I am just very uncomfortable with presumed superiority. But then again, I don’t think I am Gods representitive on earth. It would seem the sin of hubris a great risk.

I respect the point you are trying to make, in regards to your original question. Nineteen pages later, the topic has gone awry a few times, but the off-topic points do point back to the same basic truth. These questions are related in a reasonable way, and I hope you’re seeing the reason behind that.

I have considered before that a gay couple should have the same legal recourse as a traditional couple, myself. In regard to the claims on mutual property, they certainly should, in the case of an end to their relationship. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that recourse to the law already exists, basically, without defining their relationship as a marriage-like union. What is unacceptable to me, and all Catholics, and all other people with what clarity of mind they may have, about acknowledging a gay couple as a legitimate union (entitled “marriage” or not) is the effect that it has on society in general. The effects are manifold, and they are poisonous. They are adopting children now and raising them into a culture that is abominable, teaching these innocents to live a lie and to spread lies, twisting the definition of not only marriage, but love. It is a mockery to the natural order of life, and an outright disobedience to God’s commandments. Now, the Church, an institution of love, is being twisted in the views of society to be judgemental and hateful, when we are really just trying to live the life we are commanded to live.

We are not trying to be “superior.” We are not to judge. Yet, the Church was established to be the pillar and bullwark of the truth. We are obligated to lead all people (to the ends of the earth) to Jesus. It is our work “to bear good fruit.” We must do what we can to stop the spread of homosexuality. Historically, there have been homosexuals for thousands of years, and there will be until the end, no doubt. We are to love them and help them as much as any other brother and sister, but are not to support them in acts of sin. Support on a civil level would do an immeasurable amount of damage to our society. The general support they have received so far has only helped to increase homosexuality. Those tempted to follow such lusts may have otherwise rejected such a way of life instead of embracing it, simply because it is more acceptable in our society. People are naturally sexually curious. We are all tempted. Those not firmly taught in the teachings of the Church, faithful and strong enough to resist temptation, have nothing but the attitude of their peers and their own feelings to base their decisions on. Why would we not do everything in our power to stop as many souls as possible from going astray? We can’t just preach to the choir, keeping our way of life locked away inside our churches and our homes. We are commanded to shine the light of truth to all. So, that is what we do.