Jason Engwer and I recently got into a debate with self-described "Christian Fundamentalist," "Socialist," and same-sex marriage proponent Curt Day. Here's my latest response.
Curt said:
Please understand that I am only arguing for the society's acceptance of same-sex marriage, not the Church's.
Hm, okay, but this contradicts what you said above: "Same sex marriage is an evangelical issue, not a legal one."
What's more, it's duplicitous because you've already argued: "if we have religious liberty, the [sic] Christianity's definition of marriage cannot necessarily prohibit same sex marriages."
Plus in your current comments, which I'll now respond to you, it becomes quite clear you are in fact "arguing for" the church's "acceptance" of "same-sex marriage" given how you keep chastizing Christians like us for not subscribing to your "arguments" for "equality" and the like.
Though the Declaration of Independence has no 'legal' authority...
I don't know why you put "legal" in scare quotes since it's not as if there's a special meaning to the word you're attempting to highlight, is there?
But in any case thank you for conceding the point.
the equality that is emphasized in the Declaration are presupposed, however imperfectly, in the Constitution
This is pretty vague! One could easy say a lot of things are "presupposed, however imperfectly, in the Constitution." God is "presupposed, however imperfectly, in the Constitution." So according to you would there be recourse to argue for a theocracy?
This is indicated by the Supreme Court decisions that undid the systematic inequality that existed in many of the discriminatory laws from our past.
1. While we're on the topic, Jefferson wrote at length about judicial tyranny. Likewise Lincoln (who, as I'm sure you know, is the person most credited with ending slavery) had some choice words to say about judicial tyranny (e.g. check out his first inaugural address). And of course a lot of people today including conservative scholars have said or written quite a bit about judicial tyranny.
2. Are you referring to "the systematic inequality" as far as African-Americans and other ethnicities? How is what you're arguing for analogous to racism?
3. Are you referring to "the systematic inequality" as far as gender inequalities? How is what you're arguing for analogous to sexism?
4. How are homosexuals discriminated against in our society? Homosexual citizens have all the rights every other citizen has within the same bounds every other citizen has. It's not as if homosexuals don't have the right to free speech, free assembly, the right to bear arms, due process, etc.
5. Also, to my knowledge, there's no law disallowing homosexuals to marry. They can marry any man or woman they please so long as their spouse-to-be is of marriageable age, so long as it isn't an illicit consanguineous relationship, so long as they aren't married to more than one partner at the same time, and so long as they are of the opposite sex or gender. These are the same laws for every citizen.
6. If you're referring to changing gender restrictions in the law for homosexuals, why should homosexuals be given special, preferential treatment, different from everyone else in our society, such that we have to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexuals?
7. If we give homosexuals special, preferential treatment when it comes to marriage, then it's potential grounds to give others in society special, preferential treatment when it comes to marriage too. Say if the polysexual wish to marry both a man and a woman at the same time. Or say if the polyamorous wish to marry multiple partners all with their explicit consent.
8. Besides, if this is what you're arguing for, then what you're really arguing for is a redefinition of what constitutes marriage. If so, then it's not just a purely legal matter alone.
Of course, if you want to argue that gays cannot practice same-sex marriage because heterosexuals are superior and thus are the only ones who deserve the right to marry, be my guest.
Nope, sorry, that's not what I'm arguing.
Just remember what you are associating with the Gospel when you do that.
The same could be said of you. You're associating the gospel with your social values.
So why should Christians accept the moral argument of equality? Again, don't and see what you are associating with the Gospel. Do you really want people to think of Christian domination of society when they hear the Gospel?
Why are you more concerned with what society thinks of you than what God thinks of you?
Of course, there is another problem. That problem is that us Christians have difficulty in distinguishing what morals should be binding in the Church alone from those that should be binding in society as well. The cause of that inability to distinguish may not be religious or philosophical but psychological. Those who engage in too much all-or-nothing thinking struggle to make necessary distinctions.
Oh, dear. I guess you're speaking for yourself in this little psychoanalysis, and/or perhaps attempting to turn this into a didactic therapy session as if what grates your conscience is or should also be what grates other Christians as well. Ho hum.
We have a society whose laws are based on equality and respect. That means that none of us should be treated with preference before the law. Likewise, the law should not favor any group.
So why are you arguing for preferential treatment of homosexuals with regard to marriage, per what I've written above?
What some fellow Christians don't know what they are advocating when they want Christianity to determine the laws of the land is that they are asking for a place of preference in society. When a religious or ethnic group does that, they are not asking for democracy, which is the rule of all people, they are asking for an ethnocracy where one group has a position of advantage in making and living before the law over other groups.
Once again, how is this analogous to racial/ethnic discrimination? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. But you still haven't made an argument for it.
As I asked earlier, "equal" in what respect? Under the law of the land? But homosexuals are equal under the law of the land.
Or, for example, one could say, in order for x to be equal y, there needs to be a commonality z shared between x and y. So what is z with regard to your argument about "equality"? Is it that they're both minorities? But how is being a minority inherently deserving of special rights with regard to marriage? Should we allow male Muslim minorities polygyny, up to four wives?
I was pointing out the similarities between Luther's treatment of the Jews later in his career with our treatment of gays. Certainly we are not as severe with gays as Luther was with the Jews. But the justification for society acting against a specific group is the same.
1. If you're attempting to draw a this is to that as that is to this sort of parallel, as in Luther:antisemitism::modern Christians:our purported anti-homosexuality, then for starters you'll have to explain rather than simply assume or assert how modern Christians are discriminating against homosexuals in terms of marriage (which would include you addressing our aforementioned questions such as the ones about "equality") as well as how antisemitism is analogous to compelling Christians to accept a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriages.
2. As far as I'm aware, there are no laws against being homosexual, and in fact laws protecting homosexuals. Likewise there are no laws against being of a certain race or ethnicity, and in fact laws protecting minority ethnicities or races. However, whereas there are no moral or immoral consequences directly due to the color of a person's skin, there can be moral or immoral consequences directly due to a person's sexual behavior.
3. And, of course, what you say here cuts against what you said at the very beginning of your comment: "Please understand that I am only arguing for the society's acceptance of same-sex marriage, not the Church's."
Since the SCOTUS will decide the issue, regardless of what the voters of California wanted, why do we have elections?
ReplyDeleteEmanuel,
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's job, whether it be the state supreme court or the U.S. court, is to determine whether a law passed by the people or gov't violates the Constitution whether it be state constitution for state Supreme Court or U.S. Constitution for the nation's supreme court.
That's the job which the Supreme Court has assigned to itself. That doesn't make it legitimate. In CA, the court refused to allow Californians to amend the state constitution. To say it's unconstitutional to amend their constitution is circular nonsense.
DeleteLikewise, where does the US Constitution say SCOTUS has the authority to strike down an act of Congress?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIt is not just your note, but when I get a position like yours from fellow Christian Fundamentalists, I feel like I am telling one of my children. The basic, and frustrated, tone of your note is to say why can't us Christians regulate certain behaviors through laws? And so when I think about that question, I feel that there is no answer that can satisfy.
The real issue is what do we hope to gain with the law in this issue? To some of us, homosexuality is the last moral straw in society. And if we can't stop it with laws, there is no hope.
The trouble is that some approach this issue in an effort to control the world around us from evil so some feel like they not only have permission to use laws to curb homosexuality, they have a divine mandate. But in society, what you are requesting is for us Christians to have a controlling vote as to what happens in our country. It is this issue of control that is turning people away from listening to the Gospel. The more we try to control, the more people will resist and that applies to us to. The more others try to control us, the more we resist rightfully asking what right do they have to tell us what to do.
So to justify our position, we have to demonize the people we are seeking to control. And here is where we have a Biblical problem especially when we use Romans 1. Certainly Romans 1 condemns homosexuality under no uncertain terms. But, the context shows that writing about homosexuality here is not to single it out as much as to say that all sin and that there is nobody who is superior to anyone else. I write that because first, there are other sins written about in Romans 1 that are said to merit death to the sinners. And second, Romans 1 is really talking about those who deny God all together and some of the sins listed there are not uncommon even to believers.
So while Romans 1 targets the unbeliever, Romans 2 targets us. Those who would judge others condemn themselves is how it starts? Why? Because we are sinners too. Then Paul writes about how there are times when even the unbeliever's actions surpass the actions of the religious person because they sometimes do what is right out of conscience while the believer says one thing and does another. Paul's condemnation of all culminates in Romans 3 when he declares that nobody has an advantage because all are sinners.
So the question becomes, why this sin especially when there are so many other sins to control that have far more devastating immediate effects on our world? Why aren't us American Fundamentalist Christians putting in even a tenth of the effort in trying to stop the cruelty and utter destruction war brings to the world? Why aren't us American Fundamentalist Christians putting even a tenth of the effort in trying to stop the destruction of the environment being waged by industry and our own lifestyles? And why aren't us American Fundamentalist Christians putting even a tenth of the effort in trying to stop the economic war being wage by our financial institutions and corporation on the rest of society? After all, if we are the defenders of our society and nation that we claim to be when we persecute homosexuality, why are we at rest with these other sins that are harshly condemned in the Bible but are tearing our world apart?
This is what others are asking us while we seek a privileged position in society of determining how others can sexually behave. And all too often, we never hear the question others are asking because we have locked ourselves into our bedroom so we can play with our doctrines and confessions not worrying about the suffering others must endure in part because of our negligence.
You're reading Romans out of context. Paul stresses the universality of sin to lay the groundwork for justification by faith. He doesn't stress the universality of sin to disqualify one from making moral judgments.
DeleteMoreover, he attacks Jewish hypocrisy, not value-judgments, per se.
The reason homosexuality draws so much fire, or ought to, is because it is a most perverse form of fornication that is pervasively promoted by activists and the media. The latter may not be homosexual but by negating this law and redefining marriage (contrary to how Genesis and Christ Himself described it) and mocking God's design and affirming the desires of fallen man, then the rest fall as well.
DeleteWhat sin do you see so much promoted, with so much scorn and use of psychological tactics against those who disagree as homosexuality? (See http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda#Strategies_and_psychological_tactics)
What sin has seen such (refuted ) laborious efforts attempting to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and to find sanction for the same over the past 60 years?
What practice is primarily responsible for the death of over half a million Americans? (Not that this is the main reason it is wrong.)
If you want to promote pumping gas as normative by putting the pump in the exhaust pipe then do not get indignant when you get critical attention - and some flames.
In the end, God made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary and only joined them together in marriage, leaving all other sexual relations to be fornication, and is condemned in all its forms, including homosexual relations, by design and decree, and in principal and in precept.
Yet as we all have sinned, there is room at the foot of the cross for all who will repent in faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, thanks be to God.
Jason--continued,
ReplyDeleteSo think about wanting both a privileged position in society while we deliberately neglect far worse sins that are having a far more devastating effect on the lives of the people in the world.
Biblically speaking, this privileged position we seek over others is all too often due to an overconfidence in our own righteousness. But psychologically speaking, our efforts to exercise control over others indicates we are afraid of what will happen if we can't prohibit what we are trying to stop.
In the meantime, we haven't a clue as to how Christians have so harshly tried to rule society before in the name of the Lord. From before this country became a nation and even to now, there are too many Whites, who claim to be Christians, who want a superior position to Blacks. It was systematic from the 1970s and before because this control was legally sanctioned. And those who could tell you best how this was dominance was systematic were Blacks because they lived at the other end of the whip. To Martin Luther, if society didn't punish the Jews for their unbelief, society was as guilty because of complicity. So, he said for society to be righteous, they had to persecute the Jews. He was both anti-semetic and anti-Judiastic here. And the ones who understood this persecution the best were Jews.
So though their (homosexuals') position in society is far better than what it was decades ago and better than that of Blacks in the near past and Jews in Christian Europe even farther back, they are being discriminated against by the behavior of some of us Christian Fundamentalists. And we will never have the slightest notion of how we affect their lives until you listen to them. We haven't a clue because we are too busy proving to the world how "Christian": we are being to perceive how we really come across to others.
And for as much as we try to use laws to control the behavior of homosexuals, we hurt discredit our preaching of the Gospel to them.
Of course, in order for us to learn how we are acting to others, we are going to have to spend less time playing with our doctrines and confessions and more time listening to these people whom some of us have done our best to demonize. Of course, there is the rub.
Curt Day,
DeleteI didn't write the post you're responding to. Patrick Chan did.
And you keep moving from one topic to another while ignoring counterarguments and contradicting yourself. You now claim:
"This is what others are asking us while we seek a privileged position in society of determining how others can sexually behave."
Again, if you don't want anybody to try to "determine how others can behave" by means of laws, what you referred to earlier as "controlling" people, then you're advocating anarchy. And anarchy is both unwise and anti-Biblical. Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself again. Earlier, you supported not allowing incestuous marriage and marriage between adults and children. Why doesn't it follow that you're improperly "determining how others can sexually behave"? Why is it acceptable for you to oppose those types of marriage, whereas we shouldn't oppose homosexual marriage? I keep asking you to explain your apparent inconsistency, and you keep ignoring the issue.
You need to stop repeating bad objections we've already addressed, and you need to make more of an effort to interact with counterarguments.
Christians aren't seeking a "privileged" status in relation to homosexuals. Rather, Christians encourage everyone to become Christian, thereby sharing the same status.
DeleteWell, Curt, for starters my name is Patrick, not Jason. While I'm personally flattered by the comparison, duty compels me to say you do Jason a grave wrong to compare him to the likes of scum like me!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you've written a lot. But you haven't actually addressed anything I've written in my post. Rather you're entirely broadening the discussion. I guess your main point is American Christians are too small and narrow-minded. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with other people of the same gender is the least of our worries when there are far more pressing concerns like the ravages of war, the greed inspired by capitalism, the poor and hungry to feed, the erosion of our environment, racism, and so on and so forth. It ain't for nothing you call yourself a "Socialist"!
There's so much to say. Where do I even begin. How about this. I'm an ethnic minority. I grew up in a single parent house. Maybe lower middle class, although I never felt I was. I've traveled all over the world. Heck, I think I could give Obama a run for his money as far as places which I can count as part of my cultural heritage including places lived and traveled in the world (at least before his POTUStatorship). I don't say this to boast at all, but because I think it's something I hear liberals say to conservatives especially conservative Christians. They say stuff like, you haven't seen the world, you've always just lived in flyover country your whole life, blah blah blah. Also I went to school at a famously liberal university. It's probably hard to beat how liberal my alma mater is. I've worked and taught for liberal organizations (think similar to the Peace Corps). I'm currently on a typical professional track that might be the envy of many liberals. I regularly see and work with lots of people from all walks of life including the poor, the handicapped, minorities, etc. And yes that includes homosexuals. So I'm not your typical "fundy" Christian like you seem to think I am. So, please, spare me the pedantic sermonizing on socially liberal values! I've heard and experienced it all before.
All this said I'm not the only Christian that's like this. At least not in my generation. I know other conservative Christians who have backgrounds as diverse and seemingly "liberal" if not more so than my own. You mention you teach computer science at a local college but are close to retirement in your Blogger profile. I take it this means you're around 60 or so. If so, then this makes you a baby boomer. You probably came of age in the 1960s. Obviously this was a period of time in our history when there was tremendous social and cultural change, to put it mildly. I wasn't alive back then, but as I understand it, there was a lot of protesting going on. In fact, in many ways, it seems to me a lot of baby boomers define themselves not so much in terms of what they support, per se, although they do, but even more so in terms of what they oppose. Now, if I had to analyze you, I'd say it sounds like you're an all but perfect product of this generation and its thinking. It has shaped your own Christianity quite a bit. Indeed, it's as if you're still fighting the issues that loomed large back then - e.g. sexism, racism, war, capitalism, etc.
Today issues might still go by these sorts of names and people might talk in similar sounding categories. But, generally speaking, much of the world of the 1960s-1970s has become reality today. Most women and most minorities aren't treated by the law as second-class citizens. If anything, they're treated better than the majority of Americans. The "poor" today can afford to wear Nikes and own computers and talk on cell phones and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if there are even more and better laws protecting the environment, corporations donating millions to charity, unions protecting workers, and so forth today than back in the 1960s-1970s. And, of course, the people who "fought the man" in your day, who protested, who had sit-ins, organized rallies for this or that cause, or whatever else, today we call Congressman or Congresswoman, Senator, governor, and, of course, Mr. President, though Ms. President is perhaps not far behind.
ReplyDeleteSo you're tilting at windmills. A Don Quixote conjuring dreams that he's a knight stuck in the Medieval Ages battling what in his mind are ferocious giants but in truth are mere figments of his imagination. Sorry to say this, Curt, but it's time to wake up, and see the world for what it really is. In fact, if you want to know who's actually in the minority today, who's actually being persecuted, I'd think groups like white males (like yourself?) and conservative Christians have a better claim to this unwanted category than groups like the LGBT who in fact seem to be doing their darnedest to impose their way of life on the unassuming majority.
Finally, please likewise spare me the mea culpa handwringing about Christians "playing with our doctrines and confessions and [failing to spend] more time listening to these people whom some of us have done our best to demonize." As should be clear by now, I'm certainly not one of these Christians, and the Christians I know including the fine gents on this weblog would hardly fit this desription either. To be totally blunt, it just sounds like you're living in the past and fighting your own inner demons as it were.
Regarding how much attention an issue gets:
ReplyDelete- Since Curt Day doesn't want there to be legal opposition to homosexual marriage, it wouldn't matter if Christians gave the issue only a tiny percentage of their attention. Curt would still oppose legal action against homosexual marriage. Thus, objecting to the amount of attention we give the issue isn't enough. Curt needs to justify his support for the legality of homosexual marriage, which doesn't depend on how much attention the issue gets.
- If the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, and other segments of society decide to give an issue like homosexual marriage a lot of attention, Christians aren't responsible for that. The amount of attention the issue receives is largely out of our hands.
- If issue A is more important than issue B, it can still make sense to focus more on issue B in some contexts. There may be more people working on issue A, so that issue B is in more need of attention, even though it's less important. Or society may be at more of a turning point on issue B. Even though issue B is less important, there's more potential for change there. Or if somebody has more experience, knowledge, etc. on issue B, it may make sense for him to give that issue more attention, even though issue A is more important in some manner. And so on. It's simplistic to say that issue A is more important, so everybody or most people should give it more attention. The situation is more complicated than that.
- If we're to avoid addressing homosexual marriage in order to avoid offending people, then should we also avoid addressing the alleged evils of warfare in order to avoid offending the millions of people who work for the defense industry and related businesses, for example? Should we avoid criticizing polygamy in order to not offend polygamists? Should we avoid criticizing alleged environmental abuses in order to avoid offending people who work for companies that supposedly are harming the environment, for instance? In order to avoid offending people who support incestuous marriage, should we stop criticizing it? If the media, Hollywood, and other segments of society decide to give incestuous marriage a lot of attention, promoting it and trying to increase societal acceptance of it, should we only give the issue the small amount of attention we gave it prior to those efforts by the media, Hollywood, etc.? Or should we increase the amount of attention we give the issue accordingly?
Patrick,
ReplyDeletemy apologies for addressing it Jason. Will respond to the rest of your note after I get some work done
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAnd my apologies to you too for the wrong person being addressed.
So are you saying that the opposite of hierarchy is anarchy? And if it is, which form of anarchy are you referring to?
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"So are you saying that the opposite of hierarchy is anarchy?"
No. I was referring to an absence of laws, not an absence of hierarchy. Your objection to trying to "control" people, trying to "determine how others can behave", etc. can't be limited to taking legal action on homosexual marriage. Your reasoning, as you've presented it, is so broad as to be far more applicable. But you aren't applying that reasoning consistently. I'm pointing out the absurd implications of the consistent application of your reasoning.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYour points have been mostly addressed by my notes and the blogpost on the subject that is on my blog. My point is that when people feel justified in controlling the behavior of others, especially those whom they fear, there is no satisfactory answer that can be given.
Now if you feel I need to readdress your points, this is what I suggest. We address a maximum of 2 to 3 points at a time. Any more and the discussion is broadened beyond what people can legitimately follow. So the ball is in your court.
Curt Day said:
Delete"My point is that when people feel justified in controlling the behavior of others, especially those whom they fear, there is no satisfactory answer that can be given."
This is what the LGBT are attempting to do to Christians as well as others.
"Now if you feel I need to readdress your points, this is what I suggest. We address a maximum of 2 to 3 points at a time. Any more and the discussion is broadened beyond what people can legitimately follow. So the ball is in your court."
That's ironic since you're the one who keeps broadening the discussion. Jason, Steve, and I have been squarely focused on same-sex marriage. (At least I was until my most recent comment above, but even this was in response to you broadening the discussion!)
Curt Day said:
Delete"Any more and the discussion is broadened beyond what people can legitimately follow."
You have a bad habit of speaking for others. Why do you assume what's been said thus far in our posts is "broadened beyond what people can legitimately follow"? Why not rather start with the assumption that readers have no difficulty following the discussion? Your statement strikes me as lending itself to paternalism.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYour original post addressed too many points to be constantly followed. Now we argue about who is expanding the discussion but I want to focus on your statement below:
""My point is that when people feel justified in controlling the behavior of others, especially those whom they fear, there is no satisfactory answer that can be given."
This is what the LGBT are attempting to do to Christians as well as others."
Can you tell what you see the LGBT is doing to control Christians. I know multiple gay couples and have gay friends and have not seen that in them.
Curt Day said:
Delete"Your original post addressed too many points to be constantly followed."
I guess this means you didn't follow the points in my post. Or I take it Jason's or Steve's posts. No wonder you keep failing to address our points!
"Can you tell what you see the LGBT is doing to control Christians."
Well, had you read our posts, perhaps you could've seen how this was implicit.
Here are some other examples.
"I know multiple gay couples and have gay friends and have not seen that in them."
Anecdotal evidence has its limitations.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to insult, that is fine. My point is that these back & forth internet discussions go better when 2 to 3 points are discussed at the most. If you do not wish to do that, why the insult.
Similarly, you refused to answer explicitly how LGBT is trying to control Christians.
I agree that anecdotal evidence has its limitations and I only offered anecdotal evidence. And unless specify where LGBT is trying to limit Christians, then my anecdotal evidence matches your implications.
So I will be glad to wait for you to provide specifics that back your claims.
First of all, "controlling" is your hobbyhorse characterization. But as long as you frame it that way, when LGBT demand that their lifestyle be elevated to a civil right or Constitutional right, then they control Christians who dissent. For dissenters can and will be prosecuted for violating the civil rights of LGBT. This isn't just about the freedom of homosexuals to marry each other, but about fining or jailing Christians who disagree on charges of "hate speech" or refusal to provide goods and services.
DeleteThis is also about LGBT controlling students in school. If you say the "wrong" thing about LGBT, you will be suspended or expelled or required to undergo "sensitivity" training. So the LGBT agenda is coercive and totalitarian.
Curt Day said:
Delete"If you want to insult, that is fine. My point is that these back & forth internet discussions go better when 2 to 3 points are discussed at the most. If you do not wish to do that, why the insult."
I didn't insult you. I'm just taking you at your word. You admitted you didn't follow my points. Likewise I inferred you haven't followed Steve's or Jason's points. And, in fact, as anyone who actually has followed this thread can tell, you have indeed failed to address our points. But anyway this is a secondary matter.
"Similarly, you refused to answer explicitly how LGBT is trying to control Christians."
No, I did answer. Did you bother to read the link?
Also, I agree with what Steve said.
This is just a quick response since I'm in between something. But I'll be back a bit later.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the response. Let me ask this, when Blacks demanded the termination of slavery or that they have the right to vote, were they trying to control Whites who opposed them? And if you do not see these two circumstances as being comparable, can you state why?
As for being punished for saying the wrong thing in school, would that depend on the specific wrong thing being said? For example, if I am punished for saying that homosexuality is a sin, that would constitute an instance where someone was trying to control me. And actually, that happened to me in an email battle that occurred in one of the schools where I have taught. Someone sent out an email criticizing Santorum's stance on homosexuality. I responded by saying where I disagreed with Santorum but included that I thought Homosexuality was wrong on a personal level. A colleague called for me to recant or be fired. Another colleague sent hate mail. But the administration backed me up because I stated my views respectfully.
Curt Day
Delete“Thank you for the response. Let me ask this, when Blacks demanded the termination of slavery…”
i) To not be controlled by whites is hardly equivalent to controlling whites.
ii) You’re also ignoring my examples, and substituting your own example. Does that mean you tacitly concede my examples–in which case your argument fails.
“…or that they have the right to vote, were they trying to control Whites who opposed them?”
Actually, voting can be a classic form of social control. The party in power controls those who were outvoted or voted out of office.
So you’ve created a dilemma for yourself: if you think it’s wrong to control people, then it was right to disenfranchise blacks inasmuch as black voters can use the ballot box to control others.
If, on the other hand, you support voting rights, then you support a mechanism of social control.
“And if you do not see these two circumstances as being comparable, can you state why?”
Since it’s your comparison, the onus lies squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate how they are relevantly analogous.
“As for being punished for saying the wrong thing in school, would that depend on the specific wrong thing being said?”
And the interpretation depends on the people in charge. So they control others.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteActually, I argued against your position by analogy. If Blacks could not have been seen as trying to control Whites by demanding freedom, how is that those in the Gay community are trying to control the personal choices of Christians by demanding the right to enjoy same-sex marriage? The same goes for voting rights. Whites tried to keep Blacks from voting. So, it seems to me that the group that is trying to control the personal choices of another group here are Christians because they are trying to prevent gays from enjoying same-sex marriage.
The only way LGBT could be seen as trying to control Christians here is if they tried to muzzle our speech when we say that same-sex marriage is wrong. But when they demand to enjoy same-sex marriage, it doesn't affect any of our personal choices.
As for being punished for saying the wrong thing, neither happened. In fact, I got support from those who disagreed with my religious/personal opinion, including gays, because I expressed it respectfully
You’re not making a good faith effort to interact with my arguments. Is that a tacit admission that you lost the argument?
DeleteVoting is a mechanism of social control. You need to address that issue inasmuch as that’s how you yourself are framing the issue.
You also disregarded my point about civil rights. If, say, a Christian catering business refuses to cater a homosexual wedding, and if changes in the law elevate homosexual marriage to the status of a civil right, then the Christian business can be fined for violating the civil rights of the homosexual “couple.” I can multiply examples.
(Moreover, this isn’t limited to Christians. You have atheists like Keith Burgess-Jackson who oppose homosexual marriage.)
You need to have the intellectual honesty to address predictable real-world consequences of homosexual marriage.
You’re also dodging the issue on another front. The fact that you weren’t punished is irrelevant. The point is that school officials have the power to punish students who violate a school code or curriculum regarding the moral status of homosexuality. That, itself, is a deterrent to dissent. Whether or not they exercise their power in any particular case is beside the point.
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"So, it seems to me that the group that is trying to control the personal choices of another group here are Christians because they are trying to prevent gays from enjoying same-sex marriage."
You keep contradicting yourself, and you refuse to offer any explanation when asked for one. Just as your opponents are "trying to prevent gays from enjoying same-sex marriage", you're trying to prevent adults and children from enjoying marriage with each other, people who want incestuous marriage from enjoying that marriage, etc. The justification you're giving us for supporting the legality of homosexual marriage is broad enough to be applicable to other types of marriage that you and other advocates of homosexual marriage don't support. If your reasoning leads you to conclusions that you reject, then that's a problem you need to address. Instead, you keep ignoring the problem. That doesn't reflect well on your character.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAnyone who knows anything about logic, would you are wrong. I taught logic. I answered your questions by analogy and then I explained that analogy to you.
Now, here is the problem you have with your examples. Substitute Black for gay and you are traveling in Mr. Peabody's Way-Back machine. Did Southern Businessmen who did not want to serve Blacks have their rights infringed on when they, by law, were forced to serve Blacks? Are those who are offering a public service, obligated to serve the whole public or can they reserve the right to serve only selected members of the public? See, the Bible was often used to justify the discrimination practiced by Southern Businessmen.
Yes, the school administration had to the right to punish speech and they used that right to halt the hate speech I received from one colleague. Protecting innocent people who are being targeted is one of the jobs of those in authority and I believe the Scriptures back me up on that.
Finally, here is the challenge. If you believe in a particular right, you will support it even for those with whom you disagree the strongest. If you don't believe in that right, you believe in privilege of one group over the other. And if you choose the latter, they will resist, and perhaps resent, and that will be no different than if you belonged to the the unprivileged.
No, you don't get to substitute black for gay. That's an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument. You're not entitled to stipulate an analogy: you need to demonstrate how that's relevantly analogous.
DeleteFor instance, homosexuality is immoral whereas racial differentiation is morally neutral or good.
Curt Day
Delete"Finally, here is the challenge. If you believe in a particular right, you will support it even for those with whom you disagree the strongest."
I believe in the right of minors to be safe from homosexual predators by not placing homosexuals in positions of control over minors. We saw how that worked out in the Catholic church, with abusive priests and nuns.
Curt Day
Delete"Are those who are offering a public service, obligated to serve the whole public or can they reserve the right to serve only selected members of the public?"
So you do believe in social control. You believe in social control when that happens to correlate with your pet causes.
And, actually, I do think private businesses generally have a right to refuse service. If, say, a black landlady doesn't want to rent her apartment to homosexuals, she should have the right to refuse them.
Suppose a jewelry store as a buzzer system where the door is locked. To get inside, the proprietor must press a buzzer to let a customer in. Suppose the proprietor profiles who gets to come inside. If you wear a business suit, you get to come in. If you’re a young man who’s dressed like a hood, you don’t.
DeleteNo doubt that will unfairly discriminate against some innocent young men, but the business has a right to protect itself against armed robbery or worse.
Suppose a Latina realtor was raped by a white man. As a result, she doesn’t feel safe around white men. So she has no white male clients.
That’s prejudicial, but I don’t think she should be fined for refusing white male customers, even though that would discriminate against me.
Suppose the proprietor of a Jewish deli refuses to serve Christian or gentile customers. He’s a Holocaust survivor. He associates Christians or gentiles with Nazis.
His attitude is irrational, but I don’t think he should be forced to serve Christians or gentiles, even though that would discriminate against me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat is your opinion. Homosexuality is immoral according to whom? Some Christians would rightly say it is immoral. But why, in a country partially based on religious liberty are we allowed to say what is immoral for all of society?
You're playing a bait-n-switch. You compared homosexuality to ethnicity. I just pointed out how they are fundamentally disanalogous. That vitiates your facile comparison.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteNo, you just think they are totally unrelated. You oppose recognizing equality because of the effects of such a recognition. You have not explained why the country must adopt the Christian definition of personal morality as standard.
"Recognized equality"? Recognized by whom?
DeleteActually, it's not a Christian definition of personal morality, but social morality.
As long as the definition is true, why shouldn't we base social policy on true definitions?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteProve that it is social morality. And if you want to balk at the racial-sexual orientation comparison, then try the religion-sexual orientation comparison. After all, it must be at least as immoral to teach heresy that leads to condemnation as it is to practice homosexuality.
You make these declarations like saying homosexuality is socially immoral but you provide not grounds.
Okay, I guess I must explain the obvious to you. Homosexual activity is a question of social morality because it involves a transaction between two or more parties–in distinction to personal morality.
DeleteCurt Day
Delete“And if you want to balk at the racial-sexual orientation comparison, then try the religion-sexual orientation comparison. After all, it must be at least as immoral to teach heresy that leads to condemnation as it is to practice homosexuality.”
It is not the responsibility of the state to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy. Indeed, that would infringe on the prerogatives of the church. By contrast, homosexual activity isn’t just a matter of interpretation.
That’s just one problem with your fallacious analogy.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhose morality? Is it christian morality in a country partially based on religious liberty? Issues of personal morality is a country based on religious liberty are considered private, not public, issues.
And why do you continue to either declare victory or put me down. My guess is that you are a young and beginning student in these matters.
And, for that matter, teaching heresy, because of the consequences, could be considered an issue of morality
Curt Day
Delete“Whose morality?”
That laws will reflect *someone’s* morality is unavoidable. Would you prefer Peter Singer’s social ethics?
“Is it christian morality in a country partially based on religious liberty? “
American wasn’t based on “religious liberty.” The Establishment clause prohibits the Federal gov’t from instituting a national church. That’s about it.
“Issues of personal morality is a country based on religious liberty are considered private, not public, issues.”
Marriage is a social conventions, involving at least two parties, as well as laws involving common property, &c. That’s not purely “personal” or “private.”
Among other things, homosexual "marriage" include the right to adopt children. So that's isn't purely "personal" or "private."
DeleteCurt Day wrote:
Delete"Issues of personal morality is a country based on religious liberty are considered private, not public, issues."
That's an assertion, not an argument. And if marriage is a matter of "personal morality", then why do you and other advocates of the legality of homosexual marriage oppose the legality of incestuous marriage and other types of marriage? Furthermore, in another thread you participated in, I repeatedly pointed you to some articles that argue against homosexual marriage on non-Christian grounds. Earlier in this thread, Steve gave you an example of an atheist who opposes homosexual marriage. Besides, we know that America's founders allowed many government actions that were of a religious nature. To this day, we open governmental sessions with prayer, print "In God We Trust" on our currency, base our system of government on the religious notion that God has given us rights, etc. We're not a secular nation, and we never have been one. If we wanted to keep homosexual marriage illegal because the Bible opposes homosexuality, we'd be free to do so. But there are many non-Christian arguments against homosexual marriage and many non-Christians who oppose it, so we'd have good reason to oppose homosexual marriage even if we were to set aside Christian considerations for the sake of argument.
Why do you think homosexuals weren't able to marry one another in the past in the United States? Because of a societal consensus, primarily based on the Bible. This nation has been opposing homosexual marriage on Christian grounds (with some Jews, Muslims, theists, etc. agreeing with it) for hundreds of years. The idea that we're suddenly no longer allowed to do so, because homosexual marriage has gone through a recent surge in popularity, is ridiculous. If we could reject homosexual marriage on religious grounds twenty or thirty years ago, as we did, then we're free to do so now as well.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteBecause what happens to the children when you allow incestuous marriages?
I know there are previous articles against homosexual relationships, let alone marriages, from the past. But why should they hold sway over present values. In addition, why are the opinions of the personal morality of some allowed to dictate the moral code of all.
BTW, perhaps our nation's past isn't as steeped in religion as we are taught. The concerns of those who wrote the Constitution were power and wealth. The Constitution was in response to rebellions and protests over treatment by those with wealth of those without. And the Bill of Rights didn't come along until after more protests. One of the reasons for the revolution was the financial gain from westward expansion--prohibited by the British. The Pledge's "One Nation under God" was added in the 1950s I believe and "in God we trust" was added to our paper money in the same decade. It was on our coins since the 1860s.
But so what? Are you saying that Christians should continue to dominate in our country? That age both hurt our country as well as is dying. The confusion of being a Good American with being a Christian becomes the popular view when the nation is dominated by Christians. In addition, we are not called to dominate. So the past, which probably had more than one reason why homosexuals were not allowed to marry, is not a strong enough argument against allowing homosexual marriage today, that is in society only. People from the past also believed the world was flat and would believe that because of how they read the Bible. All you are saying here is that in the land of the free, we are not allowed to change?
Your one statement is wrong, however. You are allowed to oppose same-sex marriage. The question is in what sphere. Do you oppose people adopting Islam or Judaism rather than believing in Christ? If so, do you want to pass laws prohibiting people from practicing other faiths.
It is how we oppose homosexuality that is important here. If we oppose it through the law, we will be rightfully seen as oppressors because we are using the law to prevent people from making personal choices that do not violate the personal rights and choices of others. Then you will associate oppression with the Gospel. But if we oppose it, like we would oppose all sin in others and ourselves, with the Gospel alone, you have eliminated a big and unnecessary stumbling block to those who would listen.
In addition, you are forgetting the countless contributions gays have made to both our country and even our own lives. Defending their rights to make their personal choice regarding marriage is the least we owe for the contributions they have made. In addition, while opposing homosexuality, we cannot afford to mouth the Pharisee's prayer from the parable of the two men praying. We have faults too. We have to realize that because of sin, we are all equal. And since we are, we should treat homosexuals as equals. It is what they deserve and what we owe. And if we do that, we will more people who are willing to listen to the Gospel call of repentance.
Curt Day said:
Delete"We have to realize that because of sin, we are all equal. And since we are, we should treat homosexuals as equals."
We have to realize that because of sin, we are all equal. And since we are, we should treat pedophiles as equals.
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"Because what happens to the children when you allow incestuous marriages?"
I replied to that argument, in the earlier thread Patrick linked above, and you ignored what I said. And your justification for homosexual marriage usually doesn't include some sort of qualifier about it being acceptable to disallow some type of marriage if children are being harmed. Rather, your justification for homosexual marriage is usually so broad as to also be applicable to incestuous marriage, marriage between adults and children, polygamy, etc. When challenged on that point, you usually ignore the challenge or, occasionally, offer some comment like the one above. But when that sort of comment is challenged, you don't respond. When we give you comparable reasons to oppose homosexual marriage, you ignore those comparable reasons. You're coming across as a dishonest, evasive person.
You write:
"I know there are previous articles against homosexual relationships, let alone marriages, from the past. But why should they hold sway over present values."
I was referring to articles written in March of this year, which I linked in the previous thread. They should hold sway because of the validity of their arguments. You keep ignoring those articles and their arguments.
You write:
"Are you saying that Christians should continue to dominate in our country? That age both hurt our country as well as is dying."
The law doesn't change because you think "That age both hurt our country as well as is dying." If legislating on religious grounds was legally acceptable in the past, and there's been no relevant change in the law since then, why should we think that legislating on religious grounds violates the Constitution? You appealed to the legal structure of our nation, such as our system of religious liberty. I'm responding to you on those grounds. For you to reply by saying "That age both hurt our country as well as is dying" is inadequate. You can't demonstrate that something is illegal by saying that "it hurts our country and is dying".
You write:
"In addition, you are forgetting the countless contributions gays have made to both our country and even our own lives. Defending their rights to make their personal choice regarding marriage is the least we owe for the contributions they have made. In addition, while opposing homosexuality, we cannot afford to mouth the Pharisee's prayer from the parable of the two men praying. We have faults too. We have to realize that because of sin, we are all equal. And since we are, we should treat homosexuals as equals. It is what they deserve and what we owe. And if we do that, we will more people who are willing to listen to the Gospel call of repentance."
You keep repeating ridiculous justifications for homosexual marriage that could also be applied to polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage between two children, marriage between adults and children, etc. When challenged on that point, you usually ignore the challenge. When you don't ignore it entirely, you ignore most of it while selectively offering some sort of further qualification to rule out something like incestuous marriage. But when we point out how similar qualifiers would rule out homosexual marriage, you don't respond. You're being dishonest and evasive.
Curt Day
Delete“In addition, you are forgetting the countless contributions gays have made to both our country and even our own lives. Defending their rights to make their personal choice regarding marriage is the least we owe for the contributions they have made.”
Really? Marriage is a reward? Like awarding a prize to contestants in a spelling bee?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we “owe” them something for their “countless contributions,” why would marriage be the reward? Why not a gift certificate to Arby’s?
Curt Day said:
Delete"In addition, you are forgetting the countless contributions gays have made to both our country and even our own lives."
Is this an allusion to gays serving in the military? What do you think would happen to soldier morale, unit cohesion, and everything else relevant to carrying out military objectives by having openly homosexual soldiers?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to adopt? Whose rights are being violated here?
The right of the child to be raised by a normal couple who model natural, normal masculine and feminine virtues, who model natural, normal male/female interaction. Pretty elementary.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteSo if the laws will represent someone's morality, it might as well be that of Christians? Is that your argument?
There are moral values that are suppose to govern our country today. Equality, for example is a moral right. So is freedom. And perhaps you should learn the following formula that expresses the moral choice we have when making laws:
Liberty - equality = privilege
No, equality is not a moral right. Equal treatment is only a moral right when dealing with genuinely equal claims. If two things are inherently unequal, then it is illusory to treat them as if they were equal.
DeleteNo, freedom is not a moral right. What a ridiculous statement. Freedom to do what? Fly airplanes into skyscrapers?
Clearly freedom must be qualified in some important respects.
Moreover, the homosexual lobby doesn't believe in freedom. The homosexual lobby is virulently intolerant of dissent.
Maybe you should learn how to think instead of blathering mindless little slogans.
Laws should exemplify true moral values. Well, Christian morality is true, while anti-Christian morality is false.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteOf course freedom and equality are moral rights. But, say equality for example, is a moral responsibility as well as a moral right. It prevents me from flying planes into skyscrapers because the people who are in those skyscrapers are my equals and also are free.
As I see it, those of us who are in Conservative Christianity don't know when to turn off the authoritarian button because most of our relationships are authoritarian in nature. God is not only in an authoritarian relationship with us, He has appoint people in authority over us. The whole Christian family is a collection of authoritarian relationships. Husband is the head, children are to submit to their parents. We have strong authoritarian relationships at Church.
So when it comes to peers in our society who are significantly different from us, our fear causes us to call for authoritarianism to rescue us.
And, 9-11 and the flying of planes into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and a field in PA was a horrible atrocity. I knew someone on one of those planes and the person was a really good man. But we can't forget that 9-11 had a context. The context being our Middle East policies that orchestrated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to the internationally illegal bombing of infrastructure during the first Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions.
The biggest threat to the Christian faith in America is tribalism. Patriotism is a form of tribalism just as some of the allegiance people have to Dispensationalism or Reformed theology. Tribalism gives us permission to abrogate the commands from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible because our loyalty to group supersedes our commitment to following God's Word. With Tribalism comes an embracing of moral relativity, coldheartedness, and self-righteousness.
Finally, your last line says it all. Christianity must dominate society. That is the crux of our disagreement.
Curt Day
Delete“Of course freedom and equality are moral rights.”
There is no moral right to commit a moral wrong.
To speak of “freedom” in the abstract is morally meaningless. Freedom takes an object. The morality (or immorality) of freedom all depends on what you do with your freedom.
“But, say equality for example, is a moral responsibility as well as a moral right. It prevents me from flying planes into skyscrapers because the people who are in those skyscrapers are my equals and also are free.”
i) So if they were not your equals, it would be okay to murder them?
ii) Likewise, if they were not free, it would be okay to murder them?
For somebody who constantly dusts off Southern slavery, you have the mentality of a Southern slaver-master.
“So when it comes to peers in our society who are significantly different from us, our fear causes us to call for authoritarianism to rescue us.”
You’re resorting to euphemisms: “different from us.”
“The context being our Middle East policies that orchestrated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to the internationally illegal bombing of infrastructure during the first Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions.”
i) That was a UN authorized war, with a multinational combat force, followed by UN sanctions. That was a war with support from Muslim nations. So why are you blaming the US?
ii) Moreover, bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers weren’t Iraqis. So the connection you’re attempting to contrive is wholly artificial.
“Tribalism gives us permission to abrogate the commands from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible because our loyalty to group supersedes our commitment to following God's Word.”
You are giving yourself permission to abrogate the commands from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of Scripture by refusing to defend the children of your neighbors from homosexuals.
“Christianity must dominate society.”
Yes, Christian social values should “dominate” society, rather than nihilism. And everyone benefits from Christian social values, whether Christian or not. That’s for the common good.
You keep falling down on both sides of the fence. On the one hand you admit that what the Bible says against homosexuality is true. But then you talk out of the other side of your mouth.
Curt Day said:
Delete"Of course freedom and equality are moral rights. But, say equality for example, is a moral responsibility as well as a moral right."
On what basis would you argue "freedom and equality are moral rights"?
"As I see it, those of us who are in Conservative Christianity don't know when to turn off the authoritarian button...So when it comes to peers in our society who are significantly different from us, our fear causes us to call for authoritarianism to rescue us."
You keep speaking for "conservative Christianity" in order to denigrate "conservative Christianity."
"And, 9-11 and the flying of planes into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and a field in PA was a horrible atrocity. I knew someone on one of those planes and the person was a really good man."
Well, I knew (or at least knew of) someone on one of the planes as well. So I'll call your irrelevant point with my irrelevant point.
"But we can't forget that 9-11 had a context. The context being our Middle East policies that orchestrated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to the internationally illegal bombing of infrastructure during the first Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions."
What about the "Middle East policies that orchestrated the deaths," false imprisonments, tortures, rapes, genocides, use of biological and chemical weapons, and so forth against those who didn't fall into line to the Ba'athist party's march (e.g. Assyrian Christians, Kurdish Christians)?
What about the "Middle East policies" that violate the "human rights" of millions of Christians in the Mideast as well as other parts of the world?
"The biggest threat to the Christian faith in America is tribalism. Patriotism is a form of tribalism just as some of the allegiance people have to Dispensationalism or Reformed theology. Tribalism gives us permission to abrogate the commands from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible because our loyalty to group supersedes our commitment to following God's Word. With Tribalism comes an embracing of moral relativity, coldheartedness, and self-righteousness."
Actually, you make a good point when you say "loyalty to group supersedes our commitment to following God's Word," because this applies directly to you. You're far more committed to secular pluralism than you are to the Word of God. At key points, it's evident you throw your lot in with secularists than with "conservative Christians."
For one thing, you're assigning to ideals like freedom and equality the same value a secularist would. Now, I highly value these as well, but they're not the end-all and be-all of life or at least life in our nation and society. They're not the summum bonum of existence. I'd far rather be a servant in a hierarchical society living faithfully before God than I would a 21st century American who merely pays lip service to God.
"Finally, your last line says it all. Christianity must dominate society. That is the crux of our disagreement.
BTW, on a more amusing note, so much of what you say makes me think this is the sort of person you are.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI understand your position. You don't insult but you claim I have the attitude of a Southern slave owner.
Some people have justified murdering others because they saw those others as not being equals. The Nazis are example of this. They called the people they murdered or enslave "untermenschen." This meant subhuman. They saw the inferiority of the Eastern Europeans as a justification to do with them as they wanted.
And since I believe in freedom and equality for all, there is no one who deserves to be murdered.
But it seems that you are the one for whom your question is designed. You seem not to believe in the freedom and equality for all. So your questions apply to you, not me.
I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. What I did was to distinguish between what God expects of a believer in good standing in the Church from what we should expect from a citizen in good standing. If there is no difference, then it seems you are advocating some type of theonomy. I don't believe theonomy was advocated in the NT. That the ultimate NT punishment is excommunication. But if society has the same rules as the Church, then what are you suggesting that society should do with those who have been excommunicated?
It is called making a distinction. When you say the only morals are Christian morals, it seems that you are saying that the same rules for church apply to society and we get what is described above.
BTW, contrary to what you say above, the Constitution wasn't founded on the sort of namby pamby, politically correct notions of "freedom" and "equality" you're espousing. Rather the Founding Fathers were quite pragmatic. For example, one of their presumptions was that power corrupts. As such, power had to be dispersed. Hence the three branches of gov't for starters. Likewise the Founding Fathers realized how easily democracy could turn into mob rule. Hence they devised various safeguards like the electoral college, representatives, and so forth.
DeleteCurt Day said:
Delete"And since I believe in freedom and equality for all, there is no one who deserves to be murdered."
I suppose since you believe in freedom and equality for all, then you'd want a child to receive the best opportunities in life, would you not?
Curt Day said:
Delete"When you say the only morals are Christian morals, it seems that you are saying that the same rules for church apply to society and we get what is described above."
No, that's not what Steve said. He didn't say "the only morals are Christian morals."
He said: "Laws should exemplify true moral values. Well, Christian morality is true, while anti-Christian morality is false."
Not to mention he earlier asked you if you preferred Peter Singer's social ethics instead, which presupposes the existence of other sorts of morals, namely, Singer's morals or ethics.
Anyway, this isn't the first time you've misread or miscomprehended something we've said. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Curt Day
Delete“And since I believe in freedom and equality for all, there is no one who deserves to be murdered.”
So, by implication, if you thought someone was unequal or unfree, then they’d deserve to be murdered.
And that isn’t just hypothetical. Since Peter Singer doesn’t think babies or hemophiliacs or the mentally or physically disabled are equal to normal adults, that justifies abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
“You seem not to believe in the freedom and equality for all.”
I don’t believe in equal freedom for suicide bombers and medical missionaries. I don’t believe that Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama bin Laden should have the same freedom as Billy Graham. Terribly narrow-minded of me, I know.
“I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. What I did was to distinguish between what God expects of a believer in good standing in the Church from what we should expect from a citizen in good standing.”
The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. A perversion. Yet you turn around and say sexual perverts have a right to adopt children.
“If there is no difference, then it seems you are advocating some type of theonomy. I don't believe theonomy was advocated in the NT. That the ultimate NT punishment is excommunication. But if society has the same rules as the Church, then what are you suggesting that society should do with those who have been excommunicated? It is called making a distinction. When you say the only morals are Christian morals, it seems that you are saying that the same rules for church apply to society and we get what is described above.”
You’re chronically illiterate. I’ve been quite specific about Christian *social* ethics, not Christian *personal* ethics. You talk about “distinctions,” but you are unable to absorb the most elementary distinction.
In addition, as I’ve discussed many times before on this blog, we are limited by the democratic process. For instance, it would be good to have stricter divorce laws, but that’s not something we have the votes to push through.
Moreover, as I’ve also discussed on this blog, the purpose of the law is to set a floor for social behavior, not a ceiling. Likewise, as I’ve also said on various occasions, not all sins are crimes.
You’re jumping into this debate without any background regarding my position.
Curt Day4
Delete"What I did was to distinguish between what God expects of a believer in good standing in the Church from what we should expect from a citizen in good standing. If there is no difference, then it seems you are advocating some type of theonomy. I don't believe theonomy was advocated in the NT. That the ultimate NT punishment is excommunication. But if society has the same rules as the Church, then what are you suggesting that society should do with those who have been excommunicated?"
Even under the OT theocracy, not only were non-Jews not required to observe the Mosaic cultus, they were required not to observe the Mosaic cultus, unless they voluntarily converted to Judaism. Some laws applied across the board while others were specific to members of the covenant community. Don't you know that?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to go to the Middle East, that is fine. Realize the fact that Osama and the hijackers were not from Iraq does not imply that their attack was not in partial retaliation for our actions in Iraq. Likewise, neither does the fact that the UN authorized the first gulf war and the sanctions imply that they did not kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Other details of this debacle include: First, the US and UK pushed the sanctions through the UN; Second, the US and the UK enforced the sanctions; Third, the Geneva Convention is clear as to what one can/cannot do in war--that includes prohibitions against bombing civilian infrastructure. BTW, you may not know that before the invasion of Kuwait, the American gov't, under Reagan and then Bush, supported Saddam Hussein even as he use WMDs on his own people. The American gov't did not oppose Saddam or describe him as a "Hitler" until Saddam invaded the oil rich nation of Kuwait over a division caused by the British when they were carving up the country.
And when it came to the sanctions, the first two administrators of the sanctions resigned because they saw the sanctions as murdering Iraqis. The first administrator, Denis Halliday, called the sanctions genocidal while the second administrator, Hans Von Sponeck, called it war. Von Sponeck wrote a book about it called "A Different Kind Of War and as administrator, he saw that the American gov't was to blame for the problems with the sanctions.
If you read those who had interviewed Bin Laden, you will find that the 3 major grievances Bin Laden had against the US were 1) unbalanced support for Israel in its occupation against the Palestinians; 2) the war and following sanctions against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of children; and 3) the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
What you are missing here is that a significant number of Arabs see the division of the countries as a Western invention. And that there is also a strong religious tie through the Muslim faith so that people like Bin Laden saw attacks on Muslims as attacks on themselves. That is just like U.S. policy toward any country in NATO or Israel.
BTW, how am I refusing to defend my neighbors' children. Is it because I refuse to persecute/prosecute homosexuals? A family friend of ours who who played an important positive role in our children's lives is gay. We didn't know it at the time, but that didn't stop that person from contributing positively to our children's lives.
Finally, why only two choices? Why say that we either have Christian social values or nihilism? I know many non-Christians whose social values are neither. So is it worth dominating others to make people enjoy Christian social values? Or is domination a Christian value?
Curt Day said:
Delete"BTW, how am I refusing to defend my neighbors' children. Is it because I refuse to persecute/prosecute homosexuals? A family friend of ours who who played an important positive role in our children's lives is gay. We didn't know it at the time, but that didn't stop that person from contributing positively to our children's lives."
BTW, you keep bringing up personal anecdotes as if they were relevant to the debate. But for every person anecdote you bring up, someone else could bring up another to the contrary.
Curt Day
Delete"BTW, how am I refusing to defend my neighbors' children. Is it because I refuse to persecute/prosecute homosexuals?"
Look at the pattern of abuse when children were put at the mercy of homosexual priests and nuns in the Catholic church. Ditto abuse scandals in the Boy Scouts.
You're an enabler of child-rapists. You're doing the same thing Catholic bishops did, which was to give opportunity and cover to homosexual predators.
Curt Day
Delete“Likewise, neither does the fact that the UN authorized the first gulf war and the sanctions imply that they did not kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.”
Irrelevant. Did I deny that? No. You have such an illogical mind.
You single out the US, while ignoring UN complicity. That was the point.
“Other details of this debacle include: First, the US and UK pushed the sanctions through the UN; Second, the US and the UK enforced the sanctions.”
Now you’re having to include the UK, in which case you can’t single out the US.
The US and the UK can’t “push” sanctions through the UN. Russia and China both have veto power on the Security Council.
“BTW, you may not know that before the invasion of Kuwait, the American gov't, under Reagan and then Bush, supported Saddam Hussein even as he use WMDs on his own people. The American gov't did not oppose Saddam or describe him as a ‘Hitler’ until Saddam invaded the oil rich nation of Kuwait over a division caused by the British when they were carving up the country.”
You’re such an idiot. You make these arrogant, ignorant assumptions about your opponents.
When I was born, Ike was still president. I was in my 20s during the Reagan administration. I viewed the daily news coverage.
My parents were Democrat activists. They subscribed to I. F. Stone’s Weekly and other Far Left rags. I know the narrative. I don’t need your presumptuous, slanted history lesson.
Just because you discovered a hack historian like Zinn, or rely on the demonstrably, notoriously inaccurate Chomsky to warp your foreign policy outlook, doesn’t mean you’re telling me something I haven’t heard before. Just because this was new to you doesn’t make it new to me. Don’t be such a gimp.
During the Cold War, we had military alliances with some Middle Eastern regimes. That was part of the containment policy. Hardly a revelation.
“If you read those who had interviewed Bin Laden, you will find that the 3 major grievances Bin Laden had against the US were 1) unbalanced support for Israel in its occupation against the Palestinians; 2) the war and following sanctions against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of children; and 3) the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.”
You’re such a hopeless, pitiful dupe for the enemy. After 9/11, bin Laden tried to rally the support of the Muslim world behind him.
But Muslims don’t have this sense of solidarity. Muslim countries don’t care what happens to so-called “Palestinians.” That’s just an anti-Israeli talking point.
Where were the Muslim countries when the Serbs were killing Muslims? Nowhere.
Iraq has several religious factions. A Saudi like bin Laden doesn’t identify with Iraqis in general. He doesn’t identify with the Shiites or Kurds. They are infidels in his book.
Bin Laden didn’t bat an eye about dead Muslims. Al-Qaida in Iraq murdered thousands of Muslim men, women, and children.
You’re even dumber than John Walker Lindh. At least he had the excuse of youth and terminally clueless parents. What’s your excuse?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe last two notes contained extensive material so if you want to limit what you have to respond to, respond solely to this note. My problem with your view is simply this, if Christian values are to dominate a society, then more often than not, Christians must dominate the society.
In addition, there are general moral laws that are more than adequate for societies to function on. And some of the moral laws from the Old Testament predate the giving of the Law.
But having said that, that does not imply we should not try to influence society. We just should not try to dominate it. In addition, we must provide room in society who are not in good standing with the Church. And that all in society have an equal and free standing in society.
Curt Day said:
Delete"My problem with your view is simply this, if Christian values are to dominate a society, then more often than not, Christians must dominate the society."
You keep using the word "dominate" in a negative sense. Are you attempting to poison the well?
How does it necessarily follow if a society is predominantly marked by Christian values that therefore "Christians must dominate the society"? You need an additional premise to support your conclusion.
"In addition, there are general moral laws that are more than adequate for societies to function on."
Sure, lots of civilizations had "general moral laws that are more than adequate for societies to function on." Take the Aztecs, Vikings, Samurai, Romans, or Apache. Heck, even the Nazis and Saddam Hussein's Iraq had "general moral laws that are more than adequate for societies to function on."
So how does this undermine Steve's point that "Laws should exemplify true moral values. Well, Christian morality is true, while anti-Christian morality is false"?
"But having said that, that does not imply we should not try to influence society. We just should not try to dominate it."
Once again, "dominate" is your phraseology.
"In addition, we must provide room in society who are not in good standing with the Church. And that all in society have an equal and free standing in society."
This is fine-sounding on the face of it. But you're using it to argue for stuff like same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption of children, etc.
Besides, as we've already mentioned, homosexuals do have "an equal and free standing in society."
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"But having said that, that does not imply we should not try to influence society. We just should not try to dominate it. In addition, we must provide room in society who are not in good standing with the Church. And that all in society have an equal and free standing in society."
So, why don't we allow polygamy, marriage between adults and children, etc.? Why are you opposed to their marriage equality? If you're going to claim that those types of marriage are harmful to people, then why do you keep ignoring the arguments that homosexual marriage is harmful?
Curt Day
Delete“My problem with your view is simply this, if Christian values are to dominate a society, then more often than not, Christians must dominate the society.”
That’s a fallacious inference. You need to learn how to think outside the box, instead of slavishly framing every issue according to the power dynamic of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
Christian values don’t create a dominant class. Christian values don’t empower Christians. Christian social values are simply a code of conduct. They set standards for what is permissible, impermissible, obligatory, and ideal. More often than not they function as an ethical restraint on our freedom of action. To some extent they disempower adherents.
In addition, Christianity is a missionary religion. There’s an open invitation to everyone to become a Christian.
And even if some or many refuse the invitation, if basic Christian social values inform our laws, then Christian values don’t create a Christian ruling class, for the same standards apply to believers and unbelievers alike. No one can be treated better or worse. If you do the same thing, you receive the same treatment. Everyone is held to the same elementary moral criteria.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThe problem you have is your comparisons. You want to make same-sex marriage between consenting adults comparable to adult-children sexual relations and you do that to demonize. In addition, again, we are talking about marriage between consenting adults, not one spouse having a harem and part of that has to do with the legal ramifications.
Second, for the most part, the only harm that same-sex marriage will cause that has been spelled out here is the position that Christians feel they will be put in. Christian businessmen might have to provide public services to same-sex couples. Is that any worse than providing services to those practice a different faith than the Christian faith. THere has been a reference to children but nothing specific.
Curt Day said:
Delete"You want to make same-sex marriage between consenting adults comparable to adult-children sexual relations and you do that to demonize."
No, that's not what Jason wants to do. As I read him, he's saying it could potentially follow logically from same-sex marriage since same-sex marriage redefines marriage and, as such, opens the door for other redefinitions. And why isn't Jason correct? See what I wrote in the text of my original post to you as well (especially #6, #7, and #8).
Explain how Jason is attempting "to demonize" when what he says could very well follow logically from same-sex marriage, whereas all your rantings and ravings about "conservative Christians" given over to "authoritarianism," trying to "dominate" and "control" society, who are against "equality" and "freedom," among whom you draw parallels with Luther and antisemitism, and so on and so forth aren't examples of demonization?
"THere has been a reference to children but nothing specific."
That's because you either lack basic reading comprehension skills or because you don't bother to read what we've written in the first place.
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"You want to make same-sex marriage between consenting adults comparable to adult-children sexual relations and you do that to demonize. In addition, again, we are talking about marriage between consenting adults, not one spouse having a harem and part of that has to do with the legal ramifications."
The issue is whether your reasoning, if applied consistently, would allow polygamy, incestuous marriage, and other such marriages. Those other types of marriage can be different than homosexual marriage in some ways, yet still fall within the parameters of your justification for homosexual marriage.
And what does "between consenting adults" have to do with polygamy? There's nothing inherent in polygamy that excludes consent and adulthood.
Again, you keep giving us arguments for homosexual marriage that would also apply to polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc. Yet, you oppose the legality of those other types of marriage. You still haven't resolved that problem.
You write:
"Second, for the most part, the only harm that same-sex marriage will cause that has been spelled out here is the position that Christians feel they will be put in. Christian businessmen might have to provide public services to same-sex couples."
We've given you many arguments against homosexual marriage, and you've ignored most of them. Here are a few examples of the arguments that have been provided, in summary form:
- The religious argument against homosexual marriage.
- Society's interest in giving preferential treatment to the heterosexual relationship, since it provides benefits that the homosexual relationship doesn't provide (promoting the complementarity of the sexes, producing children biologically, etc.).
- Negative aspects of the homosexual relationship (significant physical health disadvantages, significantly less stable relationships, etc.).
- The slippery slope argument (opening the door to polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc.).
In an earlier thread, I linked an article by Dan McLaughlin that goes into more detail about some of the points above. I repeatedly directed you to that article, and you repeatedly ignored it.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI said dominate in response to the comment made by someone who said the only morals are Christian morals. Of course, many of the Old Testament commandments had been written in other religions. But besides that, the implication of saying that the only morals are Christian morals is that to enforce that, one group has to dominate. This is confirmed when we look at the past. When, in the history of Christianity, have our morals been the only morals of the land without domination?
In addition, do you really want to say our country is built on Christian morals? The ethnic cleansing of American Indians, the enslavement of Blacks and the 2 periods of Jim Crow, child labor, the exploitation of both domestic and foreign labor, and empire mark America's past. Is all of that ok as long as we are sexually pure? Is the only requirement for being a Christian nation that we keep to monogamous heterosexual marriages?
Curt Day said:
Delete"I said dominate in response to the comment made by someone who said the only morals are Christian morals."
No, that's demonstrably wrong. Here is the first time anyone in our debate brought up dominate or domination. Yes, that person was you. You were addressing Jason. After talking about religious groups like Christians dominating society, you said to Jason: "In other words, your desire to dominate will cause people to automatically shut their ears to your preaching."
Since then you've brought up this idea of domination several more times. Indeed, terms like "dominate" and "domination" are terms you've introduced and terms by which you've been attempting to frame the debate.
I'm tired of your deceptions. Of which this is hardly the first one.
"Of course, many of the Old Testament commandments had been written in other religions."
Why couldn't it be the other way around? How do you know which came first?
Plus, even if this is true, so what? These were all Ancient Near Eastern cultures and societies.
Finally, the OT had commandments which were unique to the OT itself.
"But besides that, the implication of saying that the only morals are Christian morals is that to enforce that, one group has to dominate."
There you go again with "dominate." We've already addressed this. It's like you don't even bother to read what we've written let alone interact intelligently. Or, if you did read it, it evidently went in one ear and came out the other.
Also, as I already explained above, Steve never said "the only morals are Christian morals." You're putting words into his mouth.
"This is confirmed when we look at the past. When, in the history of Christianity, have our morals been the only morals of the land without domination?"
An irrelevant question.
"In addition, do you really want to say our country is built on Christian morals?"
Document where I said our country is built on Christian morals.
"The ethnic cleansing of American Indians, the enslavement of Blacks and the 2 periods of Jim Crow, child labor, the exploitation of both domestic and foreign labor, and empire mark America's past."
DeleteHi there, Noam Chomsky. But I digress.
Anyway, you're the one who keeps bringing up America's ugly past. We've been responding to you when you do. But how is any of this relevant to same-sex marriage? You just keep rattling off instances of racism and other isms as if these were analogous to same-sex marriage. As if modern homosexual "discrimination" is equivalent to racial discrimination. Yet we've already told you repeatedly that you're making an argument from analogy minus the analogy. Where'e your supporting argumentation?
As for the rest of your litany of America's sins, why don't you find a nation which doesn't have a sordid past.
Likewise, why don't you check out other modern nations and compare them to America. America is hardly perfect. But, for one thing, America quite arguably values individual achievement far more than most other nations. Take Europe. Much of Europe is still mired in classism where if, say, one speaks with a certain accent one can't move up the ranks of society, no matter how smart or hard-working he or she may be. Similarly, in modern Japan there's no way a Japanese citizen who is not ethnically Japanese but say African or Chinese could ever become Toyota or Honda's CEO. No Jew could ever become a political leader in any of the nations of the Mideast. What female will be allowed to manage Saudi Arabia's oil businesses? Likewise the popular Mexican term "La Raza" has shades of the old German word "Volk" embedded in it; it is racist. Most African nations would never vote for a white man for prime minister. We could go on and on and on.
"Is the only requirement for being a Christian nation that we keep to monogamous heterosexual marriages?"
I never brought up the notion of wanting America to be a Christian nation. Once again, that's you.
However, if you truly want a Christian nation, then you could start with something like Jonah 3:6-9: "The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, 'By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.'"
I'd suggest interested people search on repositories like PubMed or at least indexes like Google Scholar for studies on how growing up in single parent homes affects kids. How growing up without a father affects sons and daughters. How growing up without a mother affects sons and daughters. For example, I haven't taken the time to vet the following paper, so I don't necessarily stand behind it in its entirety, but readers might be interested in perusing it for themselves: "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?". This paper isn't about homosexual marriage vs. heterosexual marriage. But, if the conclusions are legit, then one can potentially extrapolate some of the findings to homosexual couples since homosexual couples will lack either a father or a mother (although obviously single parent homes have their differences as well).
ReplyDelete