Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
In a Sept. 28 op-ed, “Give tithes for anti-marriage equality TV ads,” Daniel Bowman claimed the Roman Catholic Church “grossly overstepped its boundaries as religious advisors” by taking collections to fund a TV ad in favor of preserving traditional marriage.
Bowman wrote that the gay marriage debate is a “political squabble that has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the church’s political agenda.” This argument is nothing short of ridiculous. Whether you believe the Bible or not, it mentions homosexuality and marriage, which makes it relevant to Catholics. Besides, what political agenda does the church have other than promoting its beliefs? Taking a voluntary collection to support a TV ad aligned with the values of their faith is far from overstepping any boundaries.
Bowman wrote that some parishioners who might not otherwise donate to this cause would feel pressured into donating by a priest’s impassioned speech, combined with a parish’s majority support for the message. In the next paragraph, Bowman says this hypothetical situation may be ludicrous, but his point is that he “will never allow another human being to tell him that they speak with God’s divine voice.”
He’s right. This hypothetical situation is ludicrous. What he fails to recognize is that Catholics go to church and look to their priests for moral guidance. They also believe the Pope, who Bowman disrespectfully referred to as “papa pope,” speaks in God’s name when addressing moral issues, of which homosexuality is one. He claims the church should not lecture on certain issues because it might influence how parishioners donate their money, but Bowman finds himself important enough to “implore all churchgoers” not to spend their money on these ads.
For some reason, Bowman decided to use personal attacks on the Catholic Church and its followers to discredit their actions. He believes that “if the universe really is ruled by a big male animal sitting on a throne in the sky,” he would venture to guess “he has more prominent concerns than same-sex couples receiving the personal and political benefits of marriage.”
His referring to God as an animal is nothing but a personal insult to those who are religious. Christians believe God can and does oversee everything. In their belief, everything is a prominent issue for God.
Bowman ends his article by stating homosexuals are people too, who are promised “the same freedoms as the rest of the country. Said freedoms include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He goes on to say “these things were first engraved in our national consciousness when we declared our independence from Britain.” He is right when saying these rights have been in our consciousness since the beginning, but let me show you the direct quote from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“They are endowed by their creator.” God, who in the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, gives these rights that Bowman uses to defend homosexuals getting married. Are we to value one part of the Declaration of Independence while ignoring the context?
The Catholic Church did nothing wrong when taking collections from its parishioners, because the issue of same-sex marriage is a topic that has great relevance to Catholics. Bowman did little to defend his arguments as to why it was wrong but did not hold back when trying to insult the church. In the future I would hope he spends more time developing his arguments and less trying to attack his opponent.
Thomas Kwiatek is a sophomore political science student.
