The Colorado Senate: Not Their Best Moment or "Colora-d'oh!"

It has been a banner week for the State Senate in the State of Colorado.

First, Republican State Senator Scott Renfroe (Greeley) equated homosexuality to murder on the floor of the CO Senate in a debate over extending health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees.

I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal. But what I’m saying that for is that all sin is equal. That sin there is as equal to any other sin that’s in the Bible, to having wandering eyes, to coveting your neighbor’s things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal and it can be forgiven because of that.

This was followed two days later by one Republican Colorado Senator, Dave Schultheis (Colorado Springs), casting the lone no vote on a bill that would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV. During the floor debate, Sen. Schultheis said:

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

After outrage across the state developed, Sen. Schultheis clarified his stance with this gem:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Meanwhile, the Colorado GOP remains silent.

So in other words, Renfroe thinks that cheating on your spouse is as bad as murdering your spouse, and Schultheis hopes that children of promiscuous women have AIDS. Classy guys.

The GOP in our state still appears to be a tad miffed that we swung blue in the last election. The Colorado Springs senator doesn't surprise me, as Colorado Springs is the most conservative part of our state. However, I'm a tad surprised that Greeley had a republican senator.

Unbelievable. I don't know why I'm still shocked by this stuff but I am. I wonder if they would promote the idea of passing down life sentences to people who cheat on their spouses or the death penalty for lying? All sin's the same, right? Why pass laws being tougher on some than others.

Kehama wrote:

I wonder if they would promote the idea of passing down life sentences to people who cheat on their spouses or the death penalty for lying? All sin's the same, right?

There's no "would" here. He appears to be promoting the death penalty for children born to promiscuous parents. Or more specifically, for children born to parents who have AIDS for whatever reason (even if he believes the only way to get AIDS is to be a whore).

LobsterMobster wrote:

There's no "would" here. He appears to be promoting the death penalty for children born to promiscuous parents. Or more specifically, for children born to parents who have AIDS for whatever reason (even if he believes the only way to get AIDS is to be a whore).

Point made. Both of these guys just spouted out so much crap I think my brain shorted out. I'm not even going to try to understand them now.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

It has been a banner week for the State Senate in the State of Colorado.

First, Republican State Senator Scott Renfroe (Greeley) equated homosexuality to murder on the floor of the CO Senate in a debate over extending health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees.

Quote:

I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal. But what I’m saying that for is that all sin is equal. That sin there is as equal to any other sin that’s in the Bible, to having wandering eyes, to coveting your neighbor’s things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal and it can be forgiven because of that.

This was followed two days later by one Republican Colorado Senator, Dave Schultheis (Colorado Springs), casting the lone no vote on a bill that would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV. During the floor debate, Sen. Schultheis said:

Quote:

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

After outrage across the state developed, Sen. Schultheis clarified his stance with this gem:

Quote:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Meanwhile, the Colorado GOP remains silent.

Did anyone else immediately think of Bullwinkle when reading the title? Very creative. I approve of your literary prowess.
IMAGE(http://agelessbodytimelessmom.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bullwinkle.jpg)
The sin is sin statement is not a new one, however it just may be the most misunderstood statement ever. I sincerely doubt that Renfroe believes that the consequences for stealing and murder should be equal, a fact that he could have done a better job communicating in his statement.

Nomad wrote:

The sin is sin statement is not a new one, however it just may be the most misunderstood statement ever. I sincerely doubt that Renfroe believes that the consequences for stealing and murder should be equal, a fact that he could have done a better job communicating in his statement.

While I agree that the sin is sin statement is probably misrepresented from it's usual usage/meaning, he's obviously trying to argue that we can't validate this sin because to do so would be like validating these other sins (his example being murder). While I can understand that logic, I can guarantee with enough research into his voting history, we've seen him validate some other "lesser" sin (greed being highly likely).

kaostheory wrote:
Nomad wrote:

The sin is sin statement is not a new one, however it just may be the most misunderstood statement ever. I sincerely doubt that Renfroe believes that the consequences for stealing and murder should be equal, a fact that he could have done a better job communicating in his statement.

While I agree that the sin is sin statement is probably misrepresented from it's usual usage/meaning, he's obviously trying to argue that we can't validate this sin because to do so would be like validating these other sins (his example being murder). While I can understand that logic, I can guarantee with enough research into his voting history, we've seen him validate some other "lesser" sin (greed being highly likely).

That's unfortunate.

Nomad wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
Nomad wrote:

The sin is sin statement is not a new one, however it just may be the most misunderstood statement ever. I sincerely doubt that Renfroe believes that the consequences for stealing and murder should be equal, a fact that he could have done a better job communicating in his statement.

While I agree that the sin is sin statement is probably misrepresented from it's usual usage/meaning, he's obviously trying to argue that we can't validate this sin because to do so would be like validating these other sins (his example being murder). While I can understand that logic, I can guarantee with enough research into his voting history, we've seen him validate some other "lesser" sin (greed being highly likely).

That's unfortunate. :(

I think the issue is less of is this guy a hypocrite (of course he is) but rather where do you draw the line about how we should legislate regarding sinful acts. Which sins are acceptable/unavoidable and which sins aren't, because it is not our place as men to pass judgment on sinners. God will punish those who deserve it. Our job as men (and his job as a state senator) is to protect ourselves and our people, which we do by locking up murderers. Who are we protecting when we refuse to extend health benefits to someone's partner because their relationship is homosexual in nature?

kaostheory wrote:
Nomad wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
Nomad wrote:

The sin is sin statement is not a new one, however it just may be the most misunderstood statement ever. I sincerely doubt that Renfroe believes that the consequences for stealing and murder should be equal, a fact that he could have done a better job communicating in his statement.

While I agree that the sin is sin statement is probably misrepresented from it's usual usage/meaning, he's obviously trying to argue that we can't validate this sin because to do so would be like validating these other sins (his example being murder). While I can understand that logic, I can guarantee with enough research into his voting history, we've seen him validate some other "lesser" sin (greed being highly likely).

That's unfortunate. :(

I think the issue is less of is this guy a hypocrite (of course he is) but rather where do you draw the line about how we should legislate regarding sinful acts. Which sins are acceptable/unavoidable and which sins aren't, because it is not our place as men to pass judgment on sinners. God will punish those who deserve it. Our job as men (and his job as a state senator) is to protect ourselves and our people, which we do by locking up murderers. Who are we protecting when we refuse to extend health benefits to someone's partner because their relationship is homosexual in nature?

Legislation of morality is a hot button issue in Christian circles. Is it fair to hold someone legally to a biblical standard? I agree that protection is a key issue and I too wonder who the senator believes he is protecting.

Nomad wrote:

Legislation of morality is a hot button issue in Christian circles. Is it fair to hold someone legally to a biblical standard? I agree that protection is a key issue and I too wonder who the senator believes he is protecting.

This is a hot button for me. You can't legislate morality!

Morals are internal character qualities and you can not see, measure or size them. You can't police morals, you can police actions and make inferences upon the morals behind the actions.

Making it a law that people must have good character can not be enforced. Until people get away from the idea that character qualities can be legislated, we're going to continue to have a glut of unenforceable drivel on the books.

RedJen wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Legislation of morality is a hot button issue in Christian circles. Is it fair to hold someone legally to a biblical standard? I agree that protection is a key issue and I too wonder who the senator believes he is protecting.

This is a hot button for me. You can't legislate morality!

Morals are internal character qualities and you can not see, measure or size them. You can't police morals, you can police actions and make inferences upon the morals behind the actions.

Making it a law that people must have good character can not be enforced. Until people get away from the idea that character qualities can be legislated, we're going to continue to have a glut of unenforceable drivel on the books.

I don't think the question is can we legislate morality, but should we legislate morality. While I agree that it's not possible to do it, I think the more important issue is that we shouldn't do it, even if we could. The reason being, there is no "correct" morality. The world is not that simple, and even if it were, we're in no place to know what is and is not "correct".

kaostheory wrote:

I don't think the question is can we legislate morality, but should we legislate morality. While I agree that it's not possible to do it, I think the more important issue is that we shouldn't do it, even if we could. The reason being, there is no "correct" morality. The world is not that simple, and even if it were, we're in no place to know what is and is not "correct".

As soon as we start picking morals from a particular belief system to turn into law we're heading towards a theocracy. You know all those countries we deride for "harsh Islamic laws" yeah... we'd be heading the same direction, just with a different faith. Of course, like most things, I guess it's okay as long as it's the faith you personally believe in being made into law because it's the "right" one and there are perfectly understandable reasons for outlawing homosexuality, banning classes that go against Biblical teachings, or jailing doctors that perform abortions.

For me, the government is there to keep people physically safe and ensure prosperity. They're not there to tell me which religion's teachings I should follow.

No, this wasn't the best moment for Colorado. The sad thing about Sen. Schultheis's comments is that this isn't necessarily an uncommon opinion among some of the members of the community here in Colorado Springs. Ours is an extremely conservative county—home to Focus on the Family and New Life Church, among others—and there are a lot of people here who believe that they are morally obligated to make illegal all things they believe to be sinful. That's the crux of the question about legislating morality: obviously you cannot pass a law requiring that everyone be of good character, but you can pass laws outlawing the behavior that you believe is indicative of poor character.

The reasoning given from the pulpit goes like this: by not doing what you can to prevent the sin from occurring, you are culpable to an extent for that sin in the same way that a codependent spouse might be culpable for his or her partner's addiction. By passing laws that allow for HIV testing for pregnant mothers, you are condoning what is perceived to be proof of sexual promiscuity, and therefore are condoning sexual promiscuity in its various forms.

Kehama wrote:

As soon as we start picking morals from a particular belief system to turn into law we're heading towards a theocracy.

The great irony there is that even a theocracy is going to have disagreements about what should and should not be allowed.

(Freudian slip almost had me writing theocrazy)

Malor wrote:

Just because it's in religion doesn't mean it's to be rejected. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a damn good idea. I'd like to see a lot more of the not killing, in fact. A lot more.

I'll readily admit that all religions have some good laws in them so you're going to have lots of overlap. So yeah, a lot of religious rules will also be reflected in our laws. Thou shalt not kill. Check. Thou shalt not steal. Check. Thou shalt not eat meat from an animal with cloven hooves. Huh? It's when we start passing laws that don't "protect society" and that purely serve a religious interest that I would get worried. You think homosexuality is a sin? Fine and dandy. You try to outlaw it or attach some kind of penalty to "engaging in homosexual activity" just tell me what kind of public interest you're serving and who you're protecting and I'll reconsider.

*note, the above wasn't directed at anyone on here. Just ranting about the theoretical "you" that would make these arguments.

Malor wrote:

Just because it's in religion doesn't mean it's to be rejected. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a damn good idea. I'd like to see a lot more of the not killing, in fact. A lot more.

We need certain ideas and mores we need to make society work. If we're doing it from that basis, rather than trying to placate someone's Invisible Man in the Sky, we'll get better results. But religions will have many rules that work over the long term, or else they wouldn't still exist. Sorting out the stupid ones from the ones that actually matter is the tricky bit.

Golden Rule, man. Do unto others...

Most of the commandments are pretty much the Golden Rule: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't f*ck your neighbor's wife, don't lust after your neighbor's stuff. These are pretty much the social mores you need so a bunch of strangers can live in the same place in relative peace.

Just because it's in religion doesn't mean it's to be rejected. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a damn good idea. I'd like to see a lot more of the not killing, in fact. A lot more.

We need certain ideas and mores to make society work. If we're doing it from that basis, rather than trying to placate someone's Invisible Man in the Sky, we'll get better results. But religions will have many rules that work over the long term, or else they wouldn't still exist. Sorting out the stupid ones from the ones that actually matter is the tricky bit.

edit: fixed some extraneous words.

adam.greenbrier wrote:

The reasoning given from the pulpit goes like this: by not doing what you can to prevent the sin from occurring, you are culpable to an extent for that sin in the same way that a codependent spouse might be culpable for his or her partner's addiction. By passing laws that allow for HIV testing for pregnant mothers, you are condoning what is perceived to be proof of sexual promiscuity, and therefore are condoning sexual promiscuity in its various forms.

The most galling part of this is that this elected official is using his big soapbox to all but wish hardship and suffering on another human being in order to demonstrate his personal piety.

The idea the ministry and mission of the Christ was to empower people like these senators so they could wear their morality on their sleeves at the expense of others is shockingly perverse.

I just do not know who I feel more contempt for: those two individuals or the people that think what they said mirrors the teachings of the Christ.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just do not know who I feel more contempt for: those two individuals or the people that think what they said mirrors the teachings of the Christ.

I'm with ya there. You have to remember though, everyone has their own take on what God wants. Fans of the Old Testament God are all about laying the smack down on the "evil" and punishing the wicked. They also tend to be big fans of the idea of when bad things happen to you it's because it's God's will and is probably a punishment for something.

On the other hand you've got the people who follow Christ's message and embrace the peace-loving, be nice to people, God loves everyone, aspect of the faith.

So really, I think it just comes down to which aspects of God a Christian decides to accept that dictates how they react to these kinds of situations.

Kehama wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just do not know who I feel more contempt for: those two individuals or the people that think what they said mirrors the teachings of the Christ.

I'm with ya there. You have to remember though, everyone has their own take on what God wants. Fans of the Old Testament God are all about laying the smack down on the "evil" and punishing the wicked. They also tend to be big fans of the idea of when bad things happen to you it's because it's God's will and is probably a punishment for something.

On the other hand you've got the people who follow Christ's message and embrace the peace-loving, be nice to people, God loves everyone, aspect of the faith.

So really, I think it just comes down to which aspects of God a Christian decides to accept that dictates how they react to these kinds of situations.

Kehama, do you think it is possible for God to be both loving and just?

Not as long as he's both omnipotent and actually cares about mankind.

Nomad wrote:

Kehama, do you think it is possible for God to be both loving and just?

Changing my religion for a second... sure, I believe God could be both loving and just just as any parent, government, or authority figure can be. I just don't think having an angel kill all the firstborn in a city because the ruler of the city won't let some slave laborers go is "just" or that burning a city to cinders because a good portion of the residents like same-sex love and have a nambla club going is "just". I think that's just something specific to my way of thinking. I've seen too many people that, as these politicians said, see children getting diseases as a just punishment for the parent's behavior.

A God that's both loving and just could certainly exist, but I see few signs of such a thing in the Bible. I see an arbitrary, authoritarian asshole, whose rules somehow just happen to most strongly benefit the people who wrote them down.

Unitarianism seems to believe in more that kind of God. If there is a deity, I think they're a lot more tuned into it than most.

Malor wrote:

A God that's both loving and just could certainly exist, but I see few signs of such a thing in the Bible. I see an arbitrary, authoritarian asshole, whose rules somehow just happen to most strongly benefit the people who wrote them down.

Unitarianism seems to believe in more that kind of God. If there is a deity, I think they're a lot more tuned into it than most.

It certainly would be convenient to be able to choose what kind of deity exists...but then who would the real deity be, the chosen, or the chooser?

When I read what they have to say, I literally feel myself becoming stupider.

Well, Nomad, the God in the Christian Bible, as described by fundamentalists, doesn't deserve to be worshipped. The Unitarian god at least would rate the devotion.

Malor wrote:

Well, Nomad, the God in the Christian Bible, as described by fundamentalists, doesn't deserve to be worshipped. The Unitarian god at least would rate the devotion.

Any god who's attributes are chosen by us, is really no god at all.

If we accept that as true, then God doesn't exist.

Xeknos wrote:

If we accept that as true, then God doesn't exist.

Or the Bible is in fact His very Word.