Below is a conversation I recently had with someone that was spurred by my blog on tolerance. I repeat it because I think it was a great conversation and allowed both of us to bring up many points and two different viewpoints. My friend is a Christian. No commentary on my part, just what we said to each other. Please comment or react as you see fit.
My friend said,
"This is what I believe the Christian definition of tolerance is:
Romans
I agree with your definition. I agree that Christian churches should not accept homosexual marriage. If Christians wish to live at peace with everyone without having to accept everyone's beliefs as valid, churches should refuse to give out marriage licenses to homosexuals; however, they shouldn't give the State authority to define marriage. If Christians attempt to give the state the authority to regulate marriage, they delegitimize the church's own licensing authority.
Brian said,
Good points. I agree with your conclusion, though the state already regulates marriage. Many people are married outside the church and without any church involvement. All that is needed is a justice of the peace and a witness. I agree, though, that the church should refuse to marry homosexual couples.
My friend said,
Then, I think that gay marriage is a matter of tolerance. For moral purposes, isn't any marriage license that the state gives out illegitimate whether it is for a straight or gay couple? If Christians wish to live at peace with homosexuals, they should promote equality under the law. There is no moral reason to oppose state marriage equality because it has nothing to do with religious marriage.
Brian said,
I agree. But, as Christians, we still can, under the limits of the law, make our opinions known. Homosexuality is a moral offense to God. Therefore, we should avoid participating in it (no duh!) and we can, under the constitution of this country, campaign for laws against it. Personally, I like the Dr. Dobbs approach, and that is trying to lead gays to Jesus. Then let the Holy Spirit do His work. But, we have a civic duty to vote. Therefore, if gay marriage laws are proposed, we're within our rights and obligations to vote against them. Does that make sense? I just don't believe in publicly bashing gays or anyone else who lives an immoral lifestyle.
My friend said,
I don't see how it's tolerant (as you have defined) to campaign for laws that oppress a group of people. I see no reason no moral reason to oppose state marriage equality because it has nothing to do with religious marriage.
Brian said,
If one believes that whatever one thinks is right, thus everyone is right, it's called relativism, and denies absolute truth. This denies that there is a right and a wrong. However, I believe in absolute truth. There is a right and a wrong, and that right and wrong is defined by God. If a "group" of people, as you say is doing wrong, to institute controls (laws) to restrict that activity is not oppression. Oppression is denying a group of people who are that way due to no fault of their own the same rights as other groups of people are given. For example, denying education to blacks or denying equal job opportunities to women. Gays are the way they are by choice. It is a lifestyle they have selected. To extend your argument, one would have to include pedophiles, serial killers, bank robbers, drug addicts, and neo-Nazis. These are all "groups" of people. What you're saying is that any law or rule restricting these groups from doing what they feel is okay is oppression. Again, this is relativism. And it denies God's truth, not to mention makes civilized society impossible.
My friend said,
I don't depend on moral relativism to support my views on marriage equality. I depend on the principle of equality under the law. Homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. The government should not promote homosexuality, I agree; but they should certainly not promote heterosexuality either. The government needs to stay out of the social arena just as it needs to stay out of the economic arena. If there is reason to be restrictive in one, there is reason to be equally restrictive in the other. If Christians support interference into the social arena to restrict what other people can do on their own property, it is certainly not an attempt to "live at peace with everyone."
Brian said,
I would agree with you at the Federal level, as that is the way our Constitution is constructed. However, I don't agree at the local or state level. The people of the state / local community have a right to fashion their laws as they see fit as long as they are not unconstitutional at the federal level. Also, remember, much of our civil law is based on Biblical law. That is the foundation, especially for "moral" laws, though I would argue that most laws are moral. There's a good book you might want to pick up. They argue this much better than I ever could. It's called Legislating Morality.
My friend said,
I'm not saying that people don't have a "right to fashion their laws as they see fit as long as they are not unconstitutional at the federal level." I'm saying that Christians can't support restrictive marriage laws and claim that they are following the Bible's lead, since legislating such restrictions is the opposite of an attempt to "live at peace with everyone."
Brian said,
We support and fashion the laws so that we can live at peace with everyone. Pro gay marriage laws support something that God condemns. How can we be living at peace with people if we're allowing something that God condemns?
My friend said,
Just because you're allowing an individual to make a decision that is bad for themselves doesn't mean that you're supporting that decision. If you wish to help individuals, it is more efficient to persuade them that their decisions are harmful to themselves rather than forcing them to live by your position. Telling others that you know what is best for them, and using the state as your means to enforce that, certainly doesn't lead to a conservative-oriented government. Giving the state the power to restrict that which the majority thinks is immoral is liberalism. And Liberalism is certainly not an attempt to live at peace with everyone.
Brian said,
Not sure what you're using as your definition of liberalism and conservatism. The philosophy of state's rights is conservative. Liberals want a strong and big Federal government and want the government to run our lives. Conservatives believe we as a people should be able to determine our own laws, within the bounds of the constitution.
Let me back up a minute. First of all, the verse live at peace with everyone is a command to the individual and should be taken that way. We as Christians should live at peace with other individuals, as well as we can, no matter what they believe or how they live. Of course, this is within reason and not to the danger of others. So, if someone is a serial killer (extreme example) and we know it, we should turn them into the police.
Homosexuality is both a danger to an individual and to a society. It led to the downfall of both
And actually, complacency is acceptance. Let's use another example. If you allow an alcoholic to keep on drinking and do nothing to help, you are supporting that person's alcoholism. By doing nothing, you are "accepting" alcoholism as being okay. Actions show what we really believe and accept more than words. You may say you don't accept alcoholism, but if you do nothing to help out your friend, you're accepting it by doing nothing about it.
Instituting laws that the majority of people support is not liberalism, it is democracy. Trusting the government to determine what is best for people is liberalism, especially when that goes against the wishes of the majority.
My friend said,
I'm not advocating that you do nothing to help homosexuals, as you suggest in your example. I'm suggesting that you do everything within your power except use force. Do you think that it would be appropriate to lock your alcoholic friend in your basement and take care of him without his consent? I think that it would be much more compassionate to persistently attempt to persuade an alcoholic that his lifestyle is detrimental to himself.
Brian said,
There are times when the alcoholic friend may need to be put in detox or a rehab center against his will.
My friend said,
I don't see force as peaceful. Forcing your friend into rehab against his will, in my opinion, isn't an attempt to live at peace with everyone.
And what do you say?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment