Pages

Thursday, July 02, 2015

"Theocracy" and SSM


On Facebook, Michael Licona expressed ambivalence about public policy regarding homosexual marriage. He suggested that since the US is not a theocracy, we shouldn't ban homosexual marriage. In addition, he compared homosexual marriage to religious liberty. 

Let's consider some basic problems with that argument.

i) If homosexual marriage is treated as a civil right or Constitutional right, then it becomes the duty of the Federal gov't to oppose state laws that deny or infringe a civil right. 

That's not just a question of gov't "allowing" the practice, but the Federal gov't disallowing state gov't to conflict with Federal policy. 

ii) Likewise, if it's elevated to the status of a civil right or Constitutional right, then it becomes a balancing act when that alleged right comes into conflict with other Constitutional rights (e.g. freedom of religion, expression, association). 

Other rights, which are explicitly protected in and by the Constitution, will be abridged to make room for this new alleged right. 

iii) In addition, it depends on what Licona means by "theocracy." Does he mean religious principles have no place in social policy?

One classic argument against homosexuality appeals to natural law. That's implicitly religious. 

By contrast, people who subscribe to naturalistic evolution deny natural teleology. They deny proper function in nature. On that view, homosexuality is just a natural variation. 

If, however, Licona thinks that religious principles are disallowed in that sense, then the law must treat all "natural" behavior alike. There is no natural right or wrong. Consider the legal and social consequences of that outlook. As one philosopher put it:

If we really took this line of reasoning seriously, we'd have to apply it to other conditions that virtually no one wants to see as perfectly normal. For example, one could argue that pedophilia is just a different way of being, and we should respect it. After all, it's caused by a brain condition, and all brain conditions are equally good. In terms of the arguments I see from the neurodiversity movement, I see no way to say the things they say while avoiding such a conclusion. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between the two cases, but I don't see how those are available given the extreme sorts of statements that I regularly see among neurodiversity advocates.But on one level, I can't blame the neurodiversity movement (and the more general relativistic outlook among other disability communities). After all, their view follows fairly easily from a particular version of secularized naturalistic thinking. Different neurological conditions stem from natural variation, and there's no other level of explanation but natural variation. There's no God who designed human beings to have certain capabilities. There are no natural purposes according to which organisms have a nature, and certain capacities are part of what a well-functioning member of their species will be able to do. There's no notion of well-functioning if your worldview doesn't allow for higher-level explanations about purposes and design, other than perhaps simply asking whether a particular organism fits into the way most members of its species are or whether it fits the patterns members of its species typically desire for themselves. There's nothing objective about what a healthy member of that species or a well-functioning member of that species would be like. There is no way we can have a notion of the way we ought to be if there's no ground for what it would be to be the way we ought to be. 
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2012/01/neurodiversity-relativism.html

iv) There's also the general problem of grounding social mores if you rule out religion. If secular reasoning can't justify objective moral norms, then public policy because an arbitrary exercise in power. 

19 comments:

  1. "There's also the general problem of grounding social mores if you rule out religion. If secular reasoning can't justify objective moral norms, then public policy because an arbitrary exercise in power."

    Exactly. I recently had a coworker tell me incest and polygamy are morally permissible and that design arguments are insufficient counters. Of course, he later admitted he thinks morality is subjective.

    At this rate, I won't be surprised when nudists start advocating for public nudity. Allowing self-identifying transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms is the tip of the iceberg. You remove any notion of public [in]decency here, you remove it at large.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or people who want to be cannibalized, or impaled on pikes, or have certain limbs amputated (transabled), or starve themselves a la anorexia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is what Licona actually said: "Chris Armer commented on my earlier post. He asked whether I believe a Christian might be able to look at the issue of same sex marriage in a manner similar to religious liberty; that a Christian could be against the act but for the freedom to do that act. For example, one might disagree with Islam but support a Muslim's right to worship freely in the U.S.
    I've been thinking about Chris' question this afternoon and think it's a great question. We do not live in a theocracy. And Christianity does not promote a theocracy. Of course, people should have the right to worship whoever they please in the U.S. I support that even though worshipping a false God may be worse in the eyes of the true God than same-sex marriage. So, if I'm okay with the former, why would I not be with the latter? I ran it by my wife Debbie a few minutes ago and she paused then said, "I think that's the best question I've heard on the issue." I agree. What do you think?"


    It seems to me that you are taking the questions he is raising and solidifying them into finalized statements on his part. This is something of a misrepresentation, no?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A guy who goes by "Steve" just blogged on Triablogue "'Theocracy' and SSM" in which he writes, "On Facebook, Michael Licona expressed ambivalence about public policy regarding homosexual marriage. He suggested that since the US is not a theocracy, we shouldn't ban homosexual marriage. In addition, he compared homosexual marriage to religious liberty." I tried to correct him but his site is not allowing me to sign in. I can only say shame on you, Steve, for grossly misrepresenting my views!

    I didn't see this come up after I just posted it so my bad if this is a double post, but this is not an accurate representation of Mike's views and you're free to talk with him about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick,

      

I realize that you're always eager to play the role of loyal son-in-law, but since Michael is not my father-in-law, I don't share your partisanship.

      

Regarding his complaint, which you paraphrase, neither you nor he offer a scintilla of counterevidence to my summary. How, precisely, did I "grossly misrepresent" him? Notice the direct quote that McEwan supplies (see above).

      

In addition, this is one of the things that Michael said to Lydia:

      

"I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage but I do think Chris made a good point worth considering by those of us opposed to same-sex marriage. Although I think the replies have varying degrees of validity to them, I'm not thoroughly persuaded by any of them. That does not mean I'm now for same-sex marriage any more than, to make a not-equal comparison, acknowledging good points made by Calvinists render my standing as a non-Calvinist compromised. I don't have to hold every position with concrete certainty. Do I regard same-sex relations as sinful? Yes. Am I in favor of same-sex marriage? No. Do I think a reasonable case for allowing it in the U.S., which is not a Christian nation, can be made? I don't know. Do I think Chris made a reasonable point that got my attention and weighs on the side of a reasonable case for same-sex marriage in the U.S.?"

      

Care to explain to me how that's not ambivalent?

      Delete
    2. Likewise, in reply to Matthew Flannagan, Michael said:

      Regarding your second point, I think we need to take into consideration that the government does recognize other religions to the point that their organizations and clergy receive tax benefits. Muslim imams receive the same clergy benefits as pastors and mosques are tax exempt as are churches. And clergy from different religions have the legal authority to marry. In a similar manner, the legalization of same-sex marriage allows same-sex couples to file their taxes jointly and for the spouse to be on another's health insurance policy.

      How is that contrary to my introductory statement that Michael "expressed ambivalence about public policy regarding homosexual marriage. He suggested that since the US is not a theocracy, we shouldn't ban homosexual marriage. In addition, he compared homosexual marriage to religious liberty"?

      Delete
    3. It's also worth pointing out that it isn't a lie about reality to say that an imam is, in fact, a religious minister of an actual religion. (It happens to be a *bad* religion, but that's a different matter.) But it is a lie about reality to say that a man is married to another man. Therefore the type of recognition given to an imam by letting him, say, take a parsonage tax exemption for part of the rent he pays is an entirely different type of thing from calling a man another man's "spouse" or a woman another woman's "wife" on the basis of the fact that they have a romantic-sexual relationship with one another. There is precisely zero public policy advantage in thus telling a public policy lie about the relationship between these sex partners--i.e., that it is a form of marriage and has anything important and valuable in common with real marriage. There is, arguably, a prudential benefit in giving a parsonage exemption to clergy of a religion, and there is an obvious sense in which Islam is, in fact, a religion.

      All this is so simple that it shouldn't need to be said.

      The attempted comparison is just so weird that it's hard even to get one's head around it.

      Delete
    4. "A guy who goes by 'Steve' just blogged on Triablogue"

      Why does Licona put Steve's name in scare quotes?

      "I tried to correct him but his site is not allowing me to sign in."

      Does Licona have a Blogger account, or a Gmail address? If not, it's easy enough to get one. It take a few minutes at most. That's all that's needed to comment on Blogger weblogs like this one. Not difficult or time-consuming or anything.

      Delete
    5. A small housekeeping issue: I found yesterday that I had to sign in _first_ with my blogger account or else my first version of my comment would disappear into cyber-never-land when I clicked "publish." I don't know if this happens with all blogger blogs, but this is the second or third blog where I've run into it. That was probably the issue. This comment will publish and not vanish since the drop-down menu shows me already logged in with blogger.

      Carry on.

      Delete
    6. A few more responses to the comparison to tax exemptions for imams, etc. Our country does not solemnize church membership or impose sanctions (even previously agreed upon sanctions) upon those who break their membership with one church or religious body. We do not "marry" people to their churches. We do not celebrate your becoming a member of a mosque or a Baptist church or any other church. There is nothing at all in federal, state, or local policy concerning tax exemption for religious bodies that corresponds to the way in which homosexual "marriage" _binds_ those people together by a set-up ratified and enforced by the state--e.g., that if you separate you have to divide the "property of the marriage" equally.

      Civil marriage constitutes an endorsement *of the union* and makes it much more difficult for individuals to leave the union. It's intended to be so, in order to stabilize families. But there is no similar sense in which giving people a tax deductions for contributions to a mosque makes it harder for them to leave Islam or punishes them for doing so. (After all, they could get the same tax breaks for giving to a charity or a church instead.) This is just another way in which the attempted analogy is badly flawed. Again, this shouldn't need to be spelled out, but evidently it does.

      Delete
    7. Lydia McGrew

      "A small housekeeping issue: I found yesterday that I had to sign in _first_ with my blogger account or else my first version of my comment would disappear into cyber-never-land when I clicked "publish." I don't know if this happens with all blogger blogs, but this is the second or third blog where I've run into it. That was probably the issue. This comment will publish and not vanish since the drop-down menu shows me already logged in with blogger."

      Thanks, Lydia. I've experienced this on various Blogger blogs including Triablogue too. I assume it's ubiquitous across Blogger.

      Speaking for myself, I tend to write in a text processor, then copy and paste into the combox. So it's not a big deal for me. But I can understand if it's an issue for others.

      I suppose if this happened to Licona, but Licona was intent on responding, then even this is fairly easy enough to overcome though.

      Not to mention it's in general a good lesson for people not to necessarily trust inputting text they don't want to risk losing directly into web browsers.

      Delete
  5. Steve used the words "expressed ambivalence" and "suggested." I don't see where that is "solidifying them into finalized statements." "Expressed ambivalence" seems absolutely accurate, especially given the entirety of the thread, which is publically available to all. And the comparison to religion is inherent in the very question that Mike Licona considers to be such a difficult one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How does this comparison work out for Licona?

    "He asked whether I believe a Christian might be able to look at the issue of sodomy in a manner similar to religious liberty; that a Christian could be against the act but for the freedom to do that act. For example, one might disagree with sodomy but support a sodomite's right to sodomize freely in the U.S.

    I've been thinking about Chris' question this afternoon and think it's a great question. We do not live in a theocracy. And Christianity does not promote a theocracy. Of course, people should have the right to sodomize whoever they please in the U.S. I support that even though sodomizing a stranger in the bathroom at a club may be worse in the eyes of the true God than sodomizing one's same-sex spouse. So, if I'm okay with the former, why would I not be with the latter? I ran it by my wife Debbie a few minutes ago and she paused then said, "I think that's the best question I've heard on the issue." I agree. What do you think?"


    Me: I think you're a willing dupe, Mike, and you're leading your wife Debbie and your readers astray with your flaccid and God-dishonoring musings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Statement from Mike Licona
    http://www.risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/Setting-the-Record-Straight.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  8. I appreciate Mike's response, but this sounds odd:

    "Seeing how some have read some things into a few of my statements that I did not intend to communicate resulting in their distortion, I now realize that my involvement in open dialogue on politically sensitive matters will probably need to be restricted to friends in a closed setting."

    What sounds odd about it is that surely this isn't Mike's first foray onto the internet. And anyone who didn't just discover the internet last week knows that miscommunication is common place, especially on politically and theologically sensitive matters. And surely this isn't the first time or last time Mike's words have been misunderstood. Does Mike intend to withdraw entirely from the internet on that account?

    Any way, here is one possible reason why the "disapprove, but free to do otherwise" response isn't a good one: because in this circumstance the government isn't just allowing persons to live in certain ways but is privileging and approving of certain ways of living. The government has always bestowed certain benefits to married couples because it recognized those relationships as embodying certain goods that were essential to the health of the nation. Now the government is saying that same-sex relationships embody certain goods that are essential to the health of the nation. If this were a situation of "disapprove, but free to do otherwise" then we already has that situation prior to same-sex marriage where sodomy laws were struck down. In this case, the government took no notice of same-sex relationships and recognized it had no interest in them. But now the government is saying "We have an interest in promoting it." So the problem with Chris's suggestion is that it misreads the actual circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. Male / female marriage as an institution has pre-existed government, and government simply recognizes the institution. But in the case of SSM, government creates, sustains, and enforces the institution.

      Delete
  9. Steve, et al, have you dealt with, or might you recommend someone who has dealt with, the SSM as a civil rights issue? To wit opposition of SSM being equated to racism?

    Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps another good person to ask this question to is Jeremy Pierce who is a Reformed Christian and has published as well as taught on the philosophy of race.

      Delete