I was pleased to 1200 of my clergy colleagues from all 50 states and two dozen faith traditions in signing an “amicus curiae” in support of the rights of gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexual citizens to be treated with dignity.

Amicus curiae is a Latin term meaning “friend of the court.” As friends of the court, we want the U.S. Supreme Court to know that it is unconstitutional to use religious beliefs as a justification to discriminate against others.

The case before the highest court in the land is captioned “Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s the hill on which religious conservatives have decided to make their last stand in an effort to legitimize their need to marginalize the LGBTQ community.

This started when the Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians were Constitutionally entitled to marry. Two men planning their wedding went to a business that held itself out to the public as a place that made wedding cakes. They wanted one of Masterpiece Cakeshop’s masterpieces.

But like Seinfeld’s “soup Nazi,” the cake shop owners told these men, “No cake for you.”

Conservatives said these men should just shut up and quietly buy their wedding cake elsewhere. These are the same sorts of folks who believe that instead of starting a bus boycott, Rosa Parks should have simply asked politely, “Is that seat taken?” When told she could not sit there, they believe she should have quietly found an alternative way to get to work. Why stir up a fuss?

The Colorado men did not go away quietly without stirring up a fuss. They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission ruled against the cake makers on the basis of long standing legal protections against the ability of businesses to discriminate.

Those protections were at the center of the battle over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Business owners howled long and hard as Congress passed that legislation. They believed they had the right to deny service to anyone. Congress thought it had put an end to that ruse. But the heirs of those who lost that battle are back.

They argue it is their understanding of God that gives them the right to discriminate.

That is why we clergy became amicus curiae. We don’t believe the cake shop and its supporters should be allowed to speak for us. Religious thought in America is vastly diverse. As faith communities go, we are now in the majority. Faith communities claiming their beliefs provide the basis for denying the human dignity based on their sexual orientation or identity are declining in numbers.

A recent poll of people identifying themselves as Christians found a significant majority support gay marriage. Masterpiece Cakeshop bakers are asking the court to impose the views of a religious minority on all of us.

The Public Religion Research Institute poll also found more than 6 in 100 Christians opposed allowing businesses to refuse to serve gays or lesbians based on religious beliefs

My clergy colleagues and I want the Justices to know, as our amicus brief says, “Within the diverse panorama of American religious thought, a large and growing portion of the religious community welcomes, accepts, and celebrates LGBT individuals and rejects the idea that they should be subject to discrimination in public accommodations based on differing religious views that reject their dignity and equality.”

The Court must not be left with the misimpression that most people of faith share the views of those who seek to employ their beliefs as a sword to smite those they don’t understand.

Jesus said there were two great commandments, and all religious rules depended on them. The framers of the Constitution said the nation could not establish the views of any one faith as predominate, adding that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. Both the Gospel and the Constitution apply to this case, but it should be decided on the basis of the latter, not the former.

Opinions provide us a window to the world

Occasionally we should re-think personal positions on issues like the death penalty and abortion. Now and then we should ask ourselves whether the foundation of our conclusions on such profound matters is still strong enough to support our opinions.

Isaac Asimov likened our opinions to “windows on the world.” He said that if we don’t scrub them occasionally, “the light can’t come in.”  

As a young adult, I was in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion. As a state legislator in my 20s, my view of the world was through a political window. Whatever assumptions I had made in arriving at those opinions half a century ago, crumbled as I adopted a theological window.

I gradually reconsidered, coming to believe government should neither take someone’s life nor make a woman’s most personal decisions.

Among Christians I admire, many suggest those positions are mutually exclusive. They argue one cannot oppose taking life in one manner and not the other. They firmly believe life begins at conception. Some engage in Biblical overreach to bootstrap certain verses to support their view, but it’s not there.

In a 2014 essay in Christianity Today, David Neff says early Christian thinkers never addressed the matter of state-sanctioned executions. That is equally true for abortion. Nonetheless, both scripture and the processional theology of Christian thinkers over centuries provide us with a rational framework for moral reasoning on these issues.

When I taught a course on Christian ethics for a Disciples of Christ clergy certification program, I used Russell Connor and Patrick T. McCormick’s work titled “Character, Choices and Community: The Thee Faces of Christian Ethics” as a textbook.

These theologians speak about the significance of individual life experiences in moral reasoning. But, subjective experiences must be leavened in a way that holds us accountable to something other than ourselves. In response to that concern, they place what they call “moral experience” at the center of the paradigm. Then they ask, “Whose moral experience counts when deciding what is ethical?” Making the point that life is not played on a level field, they arrive at the conclusion that it’s the experience of the oppressed that matters most in our ethical choices.

Foundational to their case is that when the oppressed are liberated, so too is the oppressor. “In order for the full humanization of both the oppressed and the oppressors to move forward, ‘moral truth from the margins’ must be given a voice.”

The argument is persuasive. So, where does that take me as I rethink my positions on the death penalty and abortion?

My life experiences include practicing law and serving as the head of Wyoming’s child protection agency. In both capacities, I saw the faces of the oppressed. Some were wrongfully convicted in a fundamentally-flawed criminal justice system. Others were neglected and abused children born to people who were either unwilling or unable to parent.

Regardless of any reform, the criminal justice system is incapable of administering absolute justice in a way required to find it morally acceptable to authorize the government to take a life.

As for abortion, while I share the belief of many fellow Christians that life begins at conception, God created us with free-will and individualized life experiences. The human dignity accompanying being created in the image of God, requires that women be able to make the choice within the confines of their own lives and their relationship with the Divine. Allowing the government to make the choice denies women the responsibility of that critical relationship.

The fact that two people may follow the same framework and reach conflicting decisions can be seen as both a flaw and the beauty of moral reasoning. In truth, there is no way to know whether we start with a conclusion or a process. But now and then, we should reconsider. It’s not only good for our soul but demands that we admit the fragility of our opinions as we recognize the value of those who have different ones.

"Dialogue on Compassion" Thursday in Cheyenne

Imagine life in a community defined by compassion. Contemporary theologian Karen Armstrong says it would look like this.

“A compassionate city is an uncomfortable city. A city is uncomfortable when anyone is homeless or hungry, uncomfortable if every child isn’t loved and given rich opportunities to grow and thrive, uncomfortable when as a community, we don’t treat our neighbors as we would wish to be treated.”

Armstrong is the founder of a global movement with chapters throughout the United States and the world, that has found its way to Cheyenne. It is known as “The Charter for Compassion.”

It had its genesis here a couple of summers ago when Rev. Steve Shive, the head of Wyoming’s Presbyterian churches, convened a meeting of clergy representing a variety of faith communities. Seated around the table were Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, Jews and others.

Rev. Shive acknowledged the differences between the faiths but asked that for the moment we cast them aside and identify what we have in common. In a nutshell, it came down to what we call “the Golden Rule.”

That led the clergy to Karen Armstrong’s 2008 TED Talk, which readers can find at by Googling “Armstrong TED Talk.” She called on people of faith to work for peace by treating others as we would like to be treated. Urging a revival of the Golden Rule, she suggested the world create what she called “The Charter for Compassion.”

What followed were months of multi-disciplinary conversations about the meaning of compassion. In January 2010, the Charter was launched with 60 members beyond the U.S. to include England, Brazil, Australia, India, Botswana, and Malaysia. Now, Cheyenne is on the list.

From that 2015 roundtable, interfaith dialogue in Cheyenne has grown into a small movement. The group adopted the Charter of Compassion, which states in part, “The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures.” The full text of the Charter can be read at www.compassionatecheyenne.org. It calls Compassion an urgent need “in our polarized world.”

Through Compassionate Cheyenne, the Charter has been endorsed by 122 individuals and 13 organizations in the Capitol City. Among the organizations are several faith communities as well as the Laramie County Partnership and COMEA.

The organizers of this movement are clear that they have no political agenda. They are not asking for money, charging dues, or offering grants. While people of faith are involved, Compassionate Cheyenne is not a religious organization, but one that recognizes compassion is not just the work of a church, synagogue or mosque, but all of us.

The vision and mission is to recognize and highlight the enormous amount of compassionate work currently being accomplished in our community and to motivate others to be a part of it.

It exists for one purpose and that is to continually place the matter of compassion before decision maker. “How does compassion inform your choices?”

Decisions are made for many reasons. Finances guide some, politics others. Debates over who to help and whether, questions are asked about costs, return on investment, worthiness and more. All are important, but Compassionate Cheyenne asks that compassion be made the priority in every choice.

The dictionary defines the word “compassion” as “having a sympathetic concern for the suffering of others.” The Charter for Compassion seeks to move the needle from concern to community-wide action.

The late Henri Nouwen, the priest, professor, philosopher and writer, taught us that “Compassion asks us to go where it hurts, to enter into places of pain, to share in brokenness.” Did you hear all those action verbs? “Go,” “enter,” and “share.”

If you are interested in helping Cheyenne define compassion, Compassionate Cheyenne invites to attend a public forum on November 2^nd at the Laramie County Library. One session will be held from noon till one with an evening session at 6:30-7:30.

What does “compassion” ask of the people of Cheyenne?