Our Pennsylvania correspondent sent word of this post which contains this chart:
This is helpful and puts the difficulties that North American Christians face in a category different from the one Eritrean Christians endure.
But isn’t the issue for most neo-Calvinists and subscribers to w-w ideology that you know your rights are being violated when you see Christ’s Lordship being denied? The irony is that these folks don’t rail on themselves as much as they do the public schools, secular elites, or the Obama administration.
Old Life 
Concur
LikeLike
The chart seems a bit selective. We should add some to the left column:
my religious freedom is compromised.
If I am forced, against conscience, to fund abortifacients,
If I am forced, against conscience, to photograph a homosexual wedding against my conscience.
If I am forced against conscience to cater a homosexual wedding.
The chart is truncated because it seeks to limit the exercise of religion to public and private prayer and worship. The exercise of religion cannot be so circumscribed.
LikeLike
As an anarchist, I don’t think I can be pigeon-holed as a theonomist, but I think the neo-Calvinists are correct in worrying about the idea that, “Someone else is allowed to marry the person they love no matter what your religion says.” A change in the government definition of marriage to include homosexuals will have ramifications for Christian churches or for some Christians, Mormons, and Muslims who own businesses. If one is required by law to recognize the government’s definition of marriage and not discriminate (claim rights destroy liberty rights) against homosexuals or their marriages, then your liberties are being violated. The answer is not to fight for the status quo, but to eliminate government licensing for marriage. If marriages were simply allowed but not recognized by the government, the temptation for the government to try to change churches and individuals to recognize homosexuals as married would be lessened.
Didn’t government licensing of marriage only become popular to prevent miscegenation, anyway? How about we fight against laws with such a racist history?
LikeLike
Dr Clark, access to cost free birth control is now more or less national policy, whether you or I like it or not. If the RC is able to get out from under paying for their employees, then someone else will, either as taxes or higher premiums. How is this not an establishment of religion? As a Baptist, I am offended if the RC costs (all about) me a penny because of their religion. (There is in fact an amicus brief that has been filed in at least one pending case that raises this point).
LikeLike
Scott, what about funding wars that I find to be unjust?
What about funding technologies I consider to be a violation of the natural order?
Have we become selective about conscience?
LikeLike
Joel, didn’t Christians already have to adjust to a redefinition of marriage once the state started recognizing divorcees as married?
LikeLike
You’re impeding the renewal of all things.
LikeLike
Joel: As an anarchist…
Caleb: Cute.
LikeLike
What homosexual in his right mind would have a straight man (much less a straight Christian man) photograph or cater his wedding? Puhh-lease!
http://vimeo.com/67930171
LikeLike
Joel, how do believing anarchists square their political philosophy with something like Romans 13, especially those neo-Cal anarchists who look to the Bible for a worldview( paging Baus)?
LikeLike
What I’m curious about is what comes next, given the encroaching Muslim community. There have already been cases where Muslim check out clerks have refused to sell alcohol or pork to customers and the stores have seemingly accommodated by opening up a new check out lines for the “infidel” customers. Yet, Muslims seem to have turned a blind eye to this same-sex marriage business knowing full well that their religion strictly forbids any type of homosexual activity.
So, as these “communities” widen and deepen, gathering strength in numbers and enforcing their own sharia laws over and above those of the state, what happens one day when THEY refuse to provide services, etc, to the “gay community?” Seems like that will be a violation of this “level playing field” business we’re all about these days. What’s the state going to do about THAT? Or are they in denial about it (already)?
LikeLike
D.G., yes. Christians are much more willing to point out the sin of homosexuality than that of cohabitation and divorce, so that’s why this is a popular political issue. I agree that Christians should serve sinners of various sorts. Had some weaker brothers raised a stink earlier about recognizing divorce or as they have in the issue of providing birth control, I’d still argue along similar lines. Of course we should protect the political minority’s liberty rights, especially when the political majority is trying to destroy them.
LikeLike
Zrim, I see Romans 13 as descriptive of governments, not prescriptive of them. I think that most of our government’s laws are filled with good intentions, even if they usually undermine all that is good along the way. Romans 13 is prescriptive of our behavior toward them. We ought to obey traffic laws that our designed for our good, even if it would be better that an inept government not be in charge of the roads, with their ridiculous lack of maintenance and safety measures.
In fact, in recognition of Romans 13 prescriptions of the Christian’s behavior, I might go further than others by pointing out that a lowly Wal-Mart worker has authority over my behavior while I’m shopping there. God doesn’t want me resisting the authority of “No Customers Beyond This Point” sign, either. Just because I’d desire a better arrangement for shopping than Wal-Mart, doesn’t give me a right to undermine their authority.
Also, I’d just argue for devolution of governments so that the jurisdiction of government matches property lines. I think that smaller governments will necessarily be more just than bigger ones, and that the property owner/governor could provide an ideal to work toward. Some might say that that isn’t anarchy, but panarchy or voluntaryism.
LikeLike
George,
This is where the ‘secularists’ have a point. You need a more neutral common ground, particularly under the conditions of globalization.
LikeLike
In my mind there is a difference between funding something through taxation and being required to purchase something or perform a service.
We all pay taxes that support policies that violate our consciences — and I can imagine that none of us are happy about it. Yet we are also required to pay taxes (render unto Caesar…).
The big sea-change, however, is being required to purchase a service that violates our conscience or being required to perform a service that violates our conscience. Pacifists had to deal with this issue during WWII, but there is no Conscientious Objector status for employers required to purchase government healthcare or businesses required to provide services in objectionable circumstances.
LikeLike
Mad, do you see a meaningful moral distinction between 1) directly buying an abortifacient for an employee and 2) providing a health plan, in conformity with a federal mandate, under which an employee may choose to buy an abortifacient? Is #2 substantially the same as #1, or is #2 more like paying taxes?
This is not a trick question – I’m just wondering how you see this.
LikeLike
Joel says: Zrim, I see Romans 13 as descriptive of governments, not prescriptive of them.”
This is simply not true friend. In verse 1 we have ὑποτάσσω (let be subject) and in verse 7 ἀποδίδωμι (render or give back to) both in the imperative mood. Meaning a command. In verse 1 hupotassó is in the passive voice which means you ARE commanded to be in subjection. This is PREscriptive for sure. On the other hand apodidómi in verse 7 is a positive command, that is, it’s telling you TO DO something and is hence in the active voice. It’s coming at you both ways here. You WILL be in subjection and you WILL give to the authorities what is due them under God.
As far as your very bad attempt with the Wal-Mart thing? This passage is explicitly referring to the civil magistrate as bearer of the sword. Not Mrs. Dinsfritter the Wal-Mart greeter. You will be hard pressed to find anybody who wants smaller government than I, but “Christian Anarchism” is a contradiction in terms from a biblical standpoint. Don’t forget Titus 3:1 where we have Paul there using a parade of infinitives(long story), but the voices are still passive as relates to subjection and active as relates to obedience. “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, NASB” He was writing that to a man who was on the island of Crete where at that time there was a new city state with new pagan laws every couple feet. A most under civilized place, which is why “Cretin” has become a derogatory term for lowlife. If Paul is telling Titus to submit to government even there, then the principle is well established. Of course this would NEVER include obedience to government that constitutes disobedience to the known will and command of God.
LikeLike
Mad,
There is a precedent though. Social Security was initially offered as insurance for the elderly and this was against Amish scruples. After a long effort, the Amish were allowed to object to payment of it.
LikeLike
Greg,
I don’t think you’ve understood what I said. In case you did, though, what are the prescriptions for governments found in Romans 13?
A Christian that prefers anarchy under American governance is in a similar situation to a small-r republican in Stalin’s Soviet Empire. Romans 13 fits both situations as it is descriptive of the government, and prescriptive of Christian behavior.
LikeLike
Joel, thanks. But I wonder then what you mean by anarchist. Isn’t anarchy all about not needing any embodied authority at all (something hardly agreeable to the NT)? What you describe sounds more like limiting governing authorities as opposed to eliminating. One isn’t a nudist who simply wants women in bikinis.
ps Romans 13 seems only prescriptive of believers toward civil authorities and descriptive of governments incidentally at best. But a lot of limited government types seems to reverse that to baptize their theory of government the way neo-Cals use Dt. 6 to baptize schools.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I use anarchist to quickly identify my political beliefs, though there are various shades of anarchists. If you have an accessible term to describe someone who would like to see the U.N., the U.S. Feds, the States, and local governments to all dissolve, I’m all ears.
I don’t want limited governments (if you define them as those entities that have a monopoly of violence over a jurisdiction), I want no governments at all. If anyone thinks that is utopian, I think a utopia will be the fully realized Kingdom of God in heaven. Anarchism/voluntaryism is just a system that doesn’t have any built-in liberty rights violations. It doesn’t eliminate everyone’s duties to God’s law.
LikeLike
Joel – I want no governments at all. If anyone thinks that is utopian, I think a utopia will be the fully realized Kingdom of God in heaven
Erik – You may say Joel’s a dreamer, but he’s not the only one.
I went to high school with a guy who was a self-proclaimed anarchist. Last I heard he was living on the streets in Iowa City.
LikeLike
Joel, so 1) how is not wanting government now because that’s what it’ll be like then not a form of utopianism and 2) we’re back to squaring this with Paul who shows absolutely zero inclination that governments should pass away now. They should be happily obeyed.
LikeLike
Zrim – One isn’t a nudist who simply wants women in bikinis.
Erik – Shhhhhhhhhhh! Certain people are around.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m making a distinction between anarchy on earth and Christ’s government in Heaven. Christ’s rule in Heaven is different than his rule now. Anarchy on earth is not like heaven or even a utopia.
Do you see a distinction between obeying a government and desiring a better system? Was it a sin to desire free markets in Stalin’s Soviet Union?
LikeLike
Joel, it may be a problem of semantics. Anarchy is the absence of authority. But even in the eschaton there will be authority (and submission). But submitting now while wanting a free market in the midst of Stalin’s regime is no more sinful than obeying while wanting socialism in the midst of Reagan’s.
ps Erik, right, which is to say that while wanting women in bikinis makes sense (hi, Greg), claiming to be a nudist because of it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Anarchy isn’t an absence of authority, if you still recognize property rights. The moment you set foot on another person’s property, you have an authority. In anarchy (or at least anarcho-capitalism), you are the authority of your property.
Your second point seems to be that anarchy is not prescribed by the Bible. I agree. No form of government is prescribed by the Bible.
LikeLike
Joel
Greg,
I don’t think you’ve understood what I said. In case you did, though, what are the prescriptions for governments found in Romans 13?
A Christian that prefers anarchy under American governance is in a similar situation to a small-r republican in Stalin’s Soviet Empire. Romans 13 fits both situations as it is descriptive of the government, and prescriptive of Christian behavior.
It looks like I did misunderstand you. I apologize. I usually read more closely. My fault. The bible prescribes no particular form of civil government per se, though principles can be drawn to form a framework of what would and would not be honoring to God.
I thought you were saying that the command to obey civil authorities was somehow not particularly binding and the Wal-Mart deal was being used to carry the principle you were opposing to an absurd conclusion. I need to slow down sometime.
LikeLike
The Mad Hungarian
Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
In my mind there is a difference between funding something through taxation and being required to purchase something or perform a service.
Mark: And what is that difference? Could you please tell me, in order that I may deconstruct it.
It was never just about the water with us Aimee anabaptists, the Magisterial Reformers explained, but about us being “anarchist seditionists” who insisted on voluntary congregations and individual conscience.
And now some of the “Reformed” want to selectively play the conscience card, but to do that, they might need to agree together so that they have an united front, the one catholic church and not mere individualism.
And we anabaptists rejoice in a day when capitalism has to take second place to the right of a business to not serve bigots and to the right of bigots not to serve other sectarians.
LikeLike
Jason Stellman— “God never deals with us as individuals” (Dual Citizens, p 9)
Augustine: The field is the world, and the world is the church. Compel them to come into the covenant!
the persecuted: The earth is the Lord’s, and only the Lord can give life or compel.
Augustine: We bring both wheat and tares into the broad church, and the Lord in the end will show the difference. The Donatists may have discipline but they do not have true visible churches because they are all gnostics and perfectionists.
the persecuted: The field is the world, and churches are NOT the world. .Churches are not even our children, unless the Lord who gave us our children by natural generation gives them to Jesus by regeneration—as many as the Lord shall call.
Augustine: But original sin is removed, and regeneration given by water baptism.
the persecuted: We trust neither ourselves nor your water. Our water does not save us, because God saves us by a baptism apart from water.
Augustine: Now we know you are docetists who do not believe in either the creation or the incarnation. But the church has the power of the keys, to bring you in against your will, and to put you out as God wills. And it is a good and necessary inference that they who do not submit to the Lord’s sacraments are those who also do not believe in the creation or the incarnation.
the persecuted: We do not count your will as God’s will. Who put you in the marriage and bakery and florist business, and then gave you monopoly power?
LikeLike
MM,
I honestly do see a difference between 1 and 2, but there are others who do not see a difference. If I had my druthers (and if I were an employer) I would prefer to offer a plan that did not include abortion or the morning after pill. I’m not sure if I would go out of business over this issue, but the Hobby Lobby owner has said that he will shut his doors if he is required to purchase the plan as it stands.
As far as #2 being like paying taxes, I think there is a difference. First, the ACA is a regulation with a (tax) penalty, it is not itself a tax. Scripture requires us to pay taxes, but we are not required to support government policy (although we are required to obey the law unless that law would violate God’s law — there is going to be some differences in line-drawing here).
Second, the ACA compels the purchase of a product or service. Perhaps an analogy would be if Congress passed a law requiring, under the 2nd Amendment, that all citizens purchase a gun. Taxation is different, it allows the government to take your money. Taxation does not allow the government to force you to buy something for yourself or anyone else.
Third, there is a different degree as to directness. Taxes go to all sorts of different programs, some of which we support, some of which we do not support. The ACA requirement is more direct — a business owner’s money provides a healthcare plan that can then result in the death of an innocent life. Some people might find this more or less of an important issue.
Finally, there is a difference in that the ACA adds a new burden upon employers. Previously, we all paid taxes and some of that tax money supported policies we did not agree with. Now, however, a business owner is still responsible for those taxes, but is also responsible for providing a health care plan that he or she might not agree with. The ACA is not simply creating additional tax revenue, it is substantially expanding government requirements in a new way that violates some people’s conscience.
Let me know what you think.
LikeLike
Zrim – ps Erik, right, which is to say that while wanting women in bikinis makes sense (hi, Greg), claiming to be a nudist because of it doesn’t.
Erik – Smut peddler…
LikeLike
Under anarchy, who punishes evildoers?
LikeLike
Erik, you make the rules on your property, so you can enforce rules as you see fit. Do you think you have any duty to God for how people behave on your property right now?
LikeLike
Mad, thanks for the reply. I’ll give you my thoughts.
mh: First, the ACA is a regulation with a (tax) penalty, it is not itself a tax. Scripture requires us to pay taxes, but we are not required to support government policy
mm: One of the difficulties in this realm is separating ideas about the size of government and, in general, the sense that Obamacare is a train wreck over against religious duty per se. We can oppose it as citizens based on a number or reasons. Whether we have a religious duty to disobey brings in different considerations. In this regard it is somewhat like taxation in that it is government-mandated and there is some distance between an action of an employer and the activity of the employee.
mh: Second, the ACA compels the purchase of a product or service.
mm: this seems like a reasonable objection, but not as significant in the realm of Christian moral duty. Employers must provide wages, workers compensation and unemployment insurance with no control over how employees will use those resources, for good or ill
mh: Third, there is a different degree as to directness.
mm: We pay taxes under a mandate with no control over where the tax money goes. The employer must spend money on a health plan with no control over how it will be used. In neither case is the employer, IMO, a substantial cause of how the resources are used.
mh: Finally, there is a difference in that the ACA adds a new burden upon employers.
mm: Unless I misunderstand you, this appears to be a consideration not directly related to the issue of Christian duty but, rather, an objection to big government.
Let me know if I have missed one of your arguments. Meanwhile, here is the question I am trying to answer: is it a sin for a Christian employer to comply with Obamacare? It is not a sin to pay taxes – is Obamacare pretty much like paying taxes or is it such a direct encouragement of sin that the Christian must disobey?
LikeLike
If a pastor can’t freely preach against homosexual behaviour from the pulpit, then religious freedom has been compromised.
If parents can’t physically discipline their children, then religious freedom has been compromised. (Since religion is for all of life.)
And there are many more. That chart is too convenient; leaves out far too much.
If Christians are forced out of the public square, their practices made purely private, at home and church, then religious freedom has been compromised.
All these kinds of things are happening / have happened / are threatening to happen – perhaps moreso in countries like my own where we don’t have as much freedom as in America, but make no mistake, it’s coming your way, too.
Sure, it’s not as bad as commie China in the West. But so what? It will head in that direction, however far or not it gets…
LikeLike
Joel – Do you think you have any duty to God for how people behave on your property right now?
Erik – Not sure what you mean, other than my own wife & kids.
Ever seen “Alpha Dog”. Really thought provoking (but extremely violent & profane) movie. How is this not our lives under anarchy?
Who stops a lawless man with a lot of guns? (other than another man with even more guns?) And if someone has to have the most guns, why not a government that is at least elected by the people?
LikeLike
That “Alpha Dog” clip is especially relevant as it seems to me like the drug trade is probably our best example of how a “society” functions under anarchy. See also, “The Wire”, especially Marlo Stanfield and his crew:
LikeLike
<iR. Scott Clark
Posted March 4, 2014 at 10:49 am | Permalink
The chart seems a bit selective. We should add some to the left column:
my religious freedom is compromised.
If I am forced, against conscience, to fund abortifacients,
If I am forced, against conscience, to photograph a homosexual wedding against my conscience.
If I am forced against conscience to cater a homosexual wedding.
The chart is truncated because it seeks to limit the exercise of religion to public and private prayer and worship. The exercise of religion cannot be so circumscribed.
There’s hope for Calvinism yet.
[DGH’s response
D. G. Hart
Posted March 4, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink
Scott, what about funding wars that I find to be unjust?
elides Dr. Clark’s argument with an inapplicable diversion. For his attempt to be successful, paying taxes to the general treasury would have to be the same as being compelled to photograph gay weddings or close your business/face fines or jail. Does anyone buy that argument?]
LikeLike
Will S.
Posted March 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
(Since religion is for all of life.)
If Christians are forced out of the public square, their practices made purely private, at home and church, then religious freedom has been compromised.
Not around here. Religion is “all of life” alright, but it’s a semi-Amish thing, where you keep it away from the public, away from real life.
LikeLike
<iGreg – (Tiribulus)
Posted March 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Joel says: Zrim, I see Romans 13 as descriptive of governments, not prescriptive of them.”
This is simply not true friend. In verse 1 we have ὑποτάσσω (let be subject) and in verse 7 ἀποδίδωμι (render or give back to) both in the imperative mood. Meaning a command. In verse 1 hupotassó is in the passive voice which means you ARE commanded to be in subjection. This is PREscriptive for sure. On the other hand apodidómi in verse 7 is a positive command, that is, it’s telling you TO DO something and is hence in the active voice. It’s coming at you both ways here. You WILL be in subjection and you WILL give to the authorities what is due them under God.
As far as your very bad attempt with the Wal-Mart thing? This passage is explicitly referring to the civil magistrate as bearer of the sword.
Do not lose sight of the fact that Barack Obama is not your ruler, he is your elected magistrate and can be replaced–as can his laws.
John Calvin and his successors did some theological work on magistrates, but it’s not really discussed in this circle.
LikeLike
Tom,
But if you don’t pay your taxes to the general treasury don’t you also have to face fines or jail?
In the end can anyone really force us to do anything? All they can do is lock us up and/or kill us.
LikeLike
My apologies to all here gathered for the near-perfect botching of the HTML in the comments above–I’m on a borrowed computer, a Mac at that. So for now, peace, and out. at least you’re thinking about the topic, D, although PZ Myers’s are the last skirts I’d ever hide behind.
LikeLike
<iErik Charter
Posted March 4, 2014 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
Tom,
But if you don’t pay your taxes to the general treasury don’t you also have to face fines or jail?
In the end can anyone really force us to do anything? All they can do is lock us up and/or kill us.
Paying taxes to the general treasury is explicitly covered by “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Are you arguing there’s no difference between that and being compelled to under penalty of law to photograph gay weddings? Are we slaves and Obama is the master?
Unless your answer is yes, you’ve got a huge hole in your argumentative donut.
LikeLike
Tom, when you post with bad html, it muddies things up. Use this to test before posting.
Otherwise, we have a hard time getting at what you are saying, and why.
LikeLike
Oh, I trust those who want to get it get it just fine, Andrew, but thx for your concern. I did apologize for being on a borrowed computer and did try to sign off for the evening until Erik asked me a question.
LikeLike
Yeah, Spaulding says as much.
Enjoy your innurnet.
LikeLike
MM,
I believe the issue of defining the ACA as a tax or not as something other than a tax is significant because we are morally obligated to pay taxes, but not morally obligated per se to purchase a product or service.
As for whether Christians “must” oppose ACA, I think that the question is too broad. For what it is worth, I think that Reformed Christians “may” oppose the ACA, but are not required to do so. This may not be the case for other kinds of Christians (such as RCs given their stance on contraceptives). I’m not sure how I would answer the sin question — probably I would say it is not a sin, so long as you are not violating your conscience by providing the insurance.
My objection is that for some, and I would suppose that this includes RCs, the ACA is something that they must oppose or abstain from. This certainly appears to be the case for the owner of Hobby Lobby.
My concern is for religious liberty for all people, not just for myself. The tax penalties for business owners might be high enough such that the owners give in and violate their religious beliefs and their conscience and comply with the law. If I were a business owner I would certainly be uncomfortable with the law, but I don’t know what I would do about it.
LikeLike
MH: I believe the issue of defining the ACA as a tax or not as something other than a tax is significant because we are morally obligated to pay taxes, but not morally obligated per se to purchase a product or service.
MM: Let’s draw this out a little bit. An employer is obligated to provide the services of workers compensation and unemployment insurance. He may not be inherently obligated on a moral basis, but he is morally obligated because the magistrate tells him to comply. Now we add on Obamacare, another service mandated by the magistrate.
One could view the scripture on taxes in a narrow sense: taxes, and only taxes. But it could also be seen as a magistrate-imposed obligation, the end results of which are not under our control.
MH: …I would say it is not a sin, so long as you are not violating your conscience by providing the insurance.
MM: My inquiry – it need not be yours, certainly – is whether, as an objective matter, for me and those in my religious position, it is objectively sin. Thanks for bearing with me in drawing out the issues.
LikeLike
Tom,
Say I object to funding war. I determine that 30% of the federal budget goes toward defense, so I withhold 30% of my taxes. I face fines or jail time.
Say my brother objects to black people. He is a landlord and decides not to rent to them. He faces government fines and civil damages.
Say my sister objects to gay people. She runs a florist shop and decides not to sell flowers to them for their wedding in a state that includes gay people as a protected class. She faces government fines and civil damages.
Who is moral in their stance and who is not?
LikeLike
If anyone is to blame for gay this or gay that it’s the Greatest Generation, What the heck were they smoking to raise the Boomers? The “war on gays” was lost around 1968 – the mid 70s at the latest.
Once there was no stigma remaining against people who have premarital sex, people who cohabit, people who divorce, people who divorce and remarry, etc. why in the world should we expect a stigma against people who are gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, befuddled, or whatever?
As long as people are consenting adults the right to discriminate against them in normal business transactions was lost around 40 years ago, even if the statutes and court decisions have taken awhile to catch up.
LikeLike
Erik, if there is a principled distinction between your scenarios, it might be the belief that marriage is a uniquely sacramental act and that your sister’s resistance was aimed at what she viewed as a debasement of the sacrament, not the individuals involved in the ceremony. I’m not saying I agree, but that is the only response to your scenario that I have seen that might stand a chance in court.
LikeLike
Dan,
I see your point, but aren’t the flowers pretty far removed from the sacrament? What if a liquor store owner who hated Catholics quizzed every purchaser who came into the store on whether or not the wine was for communion — and then refused to sell it to the purchaser if it was? We would think that was way over the top, wouldn’t we?
We never think that WE are the ones that are offensive, though. This is the problem of living in a society where everyone is so easily offended instead of having a “live and let live” attitude.
LikeLike
This gets back to Hart’s original point. Once the left demands that our ministers marry gays, then let’s talk.
LikeLike
Erik,
This gets back to Hart’s original point. Once the left demands that our ministers marry gays, then let’s talk.
A good point, something to consider…
LikeLike
Why might the Greatest Generation have struggled as parents? They themselves were raised by parents who were impacted by (and probably distracted by) the Great Depression. They go off to war as young men and women and come back and begin having children. What is the state of the churches at that time? If you are in a Mainline or non-fundamentalist Protestant church you are probably not hearing the gospel or receiving sound biblical teaching in general. I know my grandparents were both members of a Methodist church in small town Iowa. One pair later left for a Bible Church. They would probably tell you they didn’t understand the gospel until they made that move in late middle age. Think about the state of the Mainline Presbyterian churches in the postwar era. Think about the state of the Roman Catholic Church on the verge of Vatican II.
Sound churches don’t solve all of society’s problems, but one thing they hopefully can accomplish is assisting parents in raising their children well. The Greatest Generation had fairly poor churches theologically. I suspect this impacted their parenting, which led to so much marital and sexual dysfunction, which is coming fully home to roost in our day.
LikeLike
If no flowers for gay weddings what about gay funerals? What about Muslim weddings? What about Muslim funerals? Pretty quickly we can start to develop Fred Phelps-like logic on these things if we’re not careful.
LikeLike
Erik, I just said it was perhaps a distinctive argument that could work in court. I would be happy to make it for your florist sister but I would advise her to bring her checkbook to court.
LikeLike
“… Sound churches don’t solve all of society’s problems, but one thing they hopefully can accomplish is assisting parents in raising their children well. The Greatest Generation had fairly poor churches theologically. I suspect this impacted their parenting, which led to so much marital and sexual dysfunction, which is coming fully home to roost in our day …”
And don’t overlook the post-war philosophy of the late 40’s throughout most of the 50’s when it came to child rearing – the infamous Dr. Spock. I’m sure his methodology, which was widely adopted, ruined more than a few lives of boomers growing up during that era. All of these things, plus a general attitude of permissiveness that grew out of an era of relative prosperity led to those turning points you spoke of earlier in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Following that, the nation then experienced yet another type of “great awakening” revival with which I’m sure we’re all familiar – the Jesus Movement. And here we are today.
LikeLike
Erik Charter : This gets back to Hart’s original point. Once the left demands that our ministers marry gays, then let’s talk.
Luther : That seems to be my limit.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’ve found that conducting a type of religious biography (not testimonial, although they can resemble one) on interview subjects (for my dissertation and research institutes). Frequently, many folks sincerely believe that voting Republican and right-wing political stances equals conservatism or orthodoxy…but when detailing what they believe is traditional theology, it looks like liberal Protestantism.
As an aside, I also noticed the Protestants in my neighborhood also never use “Protestant” to describe themselves. They will still ask neighbors “are you catholic or are you Christian?
LikeLike
I don’t know if I would blame it all on the liberal Protestants, for some reason the mass conversions of a Billy Graham or other revivalist…created an environment where the Gospel became…easy? Maybe?
In the 1980s, there was Christian New Wave…the Lifesavers, I think…that sure was’t a good sign.
LikeLike
I’m with RSC.
Wars can have conscientious objectors.
Not so the
same old paganNew Moral Order.OK, OK, Polycarp.
You can scratch the pinch of incense thing.
Instead just write “Congratulations, Adam and Steve on your Wedding Day” here on this cake and we can send you on your way, with a clean record.
Religious liberties?
Hardly. It’s called the natural law, (not to mention the original list/post is written by a jerk.)
Of which (duh) homosexuality is a gross violation.
You know.
Natural law.
What those two kingdom guys keep telling us doesn’t have anything to do with religion.
(Hint, JJStellman was one before he went over to the one kingdom side. )
LikeLike
Bob S.,
But couldn’t natural law be used to justify SSM?
Natural law allows for ” variation ” and ” adaptation “, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
I actually went to the source of the site on this one – interesting. They have some valid points mixed in there with their vitriol and hyperbole. And why the vitriol and hyperbole? The religious right does the same thing to them. They created one another. “Ideas have consequences” – but not exactly the way intended by those who traffic in that kind of quote.
LikeLike
DGH, I noticed that someone dialogued with Greg. As his pro bono counsel, may I point out that he has shown himself to be quite capable of analysis, and that he has humbly admitted a mistake? He has a point every time he comments, something that can’t be said of everyone who comments here. The guy even got into some Greek – that’s pretty good effort. With a nod to Apocalypse Now, sanctioning bad comments here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500. Finally, Detroit has had it pretty rough lately – let’s not add to its misery by keeping Greg in solitary confinement.
Psst, Greg, let me whisper a few things to you. First, you’re headed in the right direction. Now, to seal the deal, let’s do a few things. No boldface, no caps, no exclamation points. Just say no. And, in general, don’t come in with the volume at 11 (This is Spinal Tap) – dial it back to 6 or so. Think of arguing with your inside voice. Keep emotions at a Tim Duncan- type level. And you’ve said all you’ll ever need to say about movies.
LikeLike
Dan – but I would advise her to bring her checkbook to court
Erik – She would at least need it to pay you! (ha, ha)
LikeLike
George – Following that, the nation then experienced yet another type of “great awakening” revival with which I’m sure we’re all familiar – the Jesus Movement. And here we are today.
Erik – I’ve recommended this before, but I think everyone who is serious about the study of American religion needs to see the documentary about Lonnie Frisbee for insight into at least one important segment of boomer religion:
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Frisbee-The-Life-and-Death-of-a-Hippie-Preacher/70098396?strkid=224899813_0_0&strackid=64a7283a6b2b3d6b_0_srl&trkid=222336
LikeLike
Erik – thanks! Got it in my queue.
LikeLike
Luther -I don’t know if I would blame it all on the liberal Protestants, for some reason the mass conversions of a Billy Graham or other revivalist…created an environment where the Gospel became…easy? Maybe?
Erik – Graham is a really interesting subject. If the Mainline churches were doing their job, why was Graham needed (and so successful)?
If 18th century Protestant churches were doing their job, why was Whitefield needed (and so successful)?
If 19th century Protestant churces were doing their job, why was Finney needed (and so successful)?
If 21st century Protestant churches are doing their job, why are Keller, Driscoll, Warren, Osteen, Promise Keepers, et. al. needed (and so successful)?
This appears to be a recurring theme in American religion.
LikeLike
Luther, I believe with Graham the gospel became a mass-marketed consumer product. FPGA evangelists were more about local passion and trying replicate their own personal experience, Finney became more of national marketer, Moody and Sunday were more entrepreneurial. Graham went big. Warren and Osteen just built on that but already seem passe. What (if anything) is next?
LikeLike
Anarchy isn’t an absence of authority, if you still recognize property rights. The moment you set foot on another person’s property, you have an authority. In anarchy (or at least anarcho-capitalism), you are the authority of your property.
Joel, then the absence of human government. So it’s still unclear how a promotion of anarchy squares with the Bible, which only and ever promotes human government and enjoins believers to their due submission (whatever kind they may be).
Property rights are great and all, but I find those most concerned about them tend to be the neighbors who go ape when a neighborhood dog relieves herself on their lawn or kid cuts their corner on his bike. They’re probably also the ones up in legal arms about the cohabitating gays down the street. What they don’t grasp is that neighborhoods come with peeing dogs and pedaling kids, and guarding their precious property rights makes them the neighborhood crank. In the same way, those most irked about certain marriage laws are the nation’s cranks who seem to think human society turns on its laws.
LikeLike
Erik said: “That “Alpha Dog” clip is especially relevant as it seems to me like the drug trade is probably our best example of how a “society” functions under anarchy. See also, “The Wire”, especially Marlo Stanfield and his crew:”
Joel: So a situation that arises under the Federal enforcement of laws, and made worse from tightening the screws by government agents (think alcohol prohibition) is how anarchy works? Bad analogy.
Good analogies are examples where the free market takes over a hampered or socialized one, or an industry where there aren’t government regulations. I’m wanting a society where security, courts, fire protection, and roads are provided by market actors.
LikeLike
Chorts – What (if anything) is next?
Erik – Driscoll figuring out that sex sells?
LikeLike
Joel,
I’m not totally unsympathetic, but doesn’t what you are proposing presuppose people who are virtuous and rational?
The problem is how to handle people who are evil, irrational, selfish, and destructive of themselves and others. It’s not the good people I’m worried about, it’s how to police the bad people.
If drugs were legalized under anarchy, who enforces the rules by which they are sold? You’re talking about a product that would destroy a lot of people’s lives.
LikeLike
Erik, “biblical teaching”? How old-fashioned.
LikeLike
Luther,
that’s what happens when politics and theology mix. theology loses.
LikeLike
Driscoll and Doug Wilson are really good examples of ministers who have figured out that they CAN talk about something without thinking about if they SHOULD talk about something in public.
http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-As-It-Was/dp/188576717X
LikeLike
Look at the price of a used copy of “Southern Slavery as it Was” on Amazon — $58.95 is the cheapest.
This has obviously been self-suppressed, given that Wilson has his own publishing company.
LikeLike
Zrim, I gave examples of other sorts of plausible authorities in my mentioning Wal-Mart. You make it sound as if the Bible commanded the modern nation-state. Was it sinful for early Americans to move to the frontier? Am I really to expect the Bible to explicitly handle an apolitical society where people are not under the authority of those that claim the sole right of aggressive violence within a certain bailiwick? I don’t think that the Bible’s lack of discussion about constitutional republics and explicit discussion of life under an Emperor implies that the former is invalid.
LikeLike
I have a great promotional idea for them. For a limited time Canon Press can sell “Southern Slavery as It Was” along with a DVD of “12 Years a Slave”. Christian & homeschools can compare, contrast, and discuss.
How would slavery be policed under anarchy? If I have weapons and another guy does not, who stops me from making him my slave? Of making a woman my sex-slave?
LikeLike
eminem, I hear you. Greg is now on probation. But if Doug Sowers returns, I’ll extend the ban to Muddy Gravel and his colleagues.
LikeLike
D.G. – Erik, “biblical teaching”? How old-fashioned.
Erik – When the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church isn’t available, it’s the next best thing.
LikeLike
Joel – Was it sinful for early Americans to move to the frontier?
Erik – Backed up by government land grants enforced by the rule of law.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Since Greg’s vitriol was primarily aimed at you & me it seems logical that we would be the ones to have to forgive him, leading to the revocation of the Sowers rule. It’s fine with me. I don’t personally plan to engage him, but it’s a free country.
Interesting that Mitch thinks he’s the one with the authority to forgive him, though. I don’t recall him being the one who was called a heretic, terrible husband, terrible father, unregenerate sinner, and on and on. I think offering forgiveness when you haven’t been the one that was sinned against is what liberals do.
LikeLike
Erik,
“I’m not totally unsympathetic, but doesn’t what you are proposing presuppose people who are virtuous and rational?”
For me, the question is not whether people will be good or bad. The question is whether good or bad people and societies can be made better through the legitimization a body of people who claim a monopoly of aggression or the ability to violate natural/liberty rights.
America’s most common drug addictions are to the ones doctors prescribe or legal drugs, all regulated by our government. The violence associated with illegal drugs is created by artificially inflated prices thanks to their prohibition. How often is there violence over access to aspirin? Eliminate the prohibition, the prices drop, the violence related to the high prices stop. Yes, they may still be immoral, but has the government stopped the immorality or inflamed it? There’s a photo essay at the Atlantic that really needs attention by prohibitionists. Are marijuana laws really worth this? http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/mexicos-drug-war-50-000-dead-in-6-years/100299/
LikeLike
Mikelman: “I actually went to the source of the site on this one – interesting. They have some valid points mixed in there with their vitriol and hyperbole. And why the vitriol and hyperbole? The religious right does the same thing to them. They created one another. “Ideas have consequences” – but not exactly the way intended by those who traffic in that kind of quote.”
Ding. Ding. Ding.
LikeLike
Joel:
Did you watch the “Hamsterdam” episodes?
LikeLike
Joel – The question is whether good or bad people and societies can be made better through the legitimization a body of people who claim a monopoly of aggression or the ability to violate natural/liberty rights.
Erik – Like Zrim, I think you have a heavy burden to overcome with Paul and Romans 13.
I hear you on drug laws, but aspirin is not heroin. Marijuana is also not heroin. As Christians I don’t know that we can be laissez faire to that extent.
LikeLike
JP,
“Hamsterdam” was interesting. Certainly the violence between the dealers diminished. What we didn’t see was the continuing havoc that the drugs caused in the lives of the people who were using them.
LikeLike
Joel, not necessarily. I just don’t see where it condones nation-state deconstruction. You know, the regulative principle of reading as opposed to the normative. It seems a hard case to make that whenever the NT writers wrote they had any inherent trouble with nation-states, be they republics or monarchies. If they didn’t, why should we? But are you suggesting that a constitutional republic is anarchy? If anarchy is the absence of human government and a constitutional republic is a form of human government then what you think is anarchy remains unclear.
ps If you envision a society in which everything is privately provided and in which there are then no taxes but only fees, do biblical imperatives to pay taxes become irrelevant? How can I pay something that doesn’t exist?
LikeLike
Now I’ll say some blasphemy. I haven’t seen The Wire yet. I keep waiting for it to come out on blu-ray and at a little cheaper price.
I didn’t claim that ending prohibition will make people more moral or happier. I just said that it would end the violence related to the high prices, which, living in the neighborhood that I do, seems like a great thing.
Yes, heroin is bad, but I’d argue that the Mafia and Los Zetas is worse. Compare Mexico’s situation to Portugal’s: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html
Erik- “Like Zrim, I think you have a heavy burden to overcome with Paul and Romans 13.”
Joel- What are the prescriptions for government in Romans 13?
I think you can have regulated behavior in anarchy. People agree to that all the time. If I work for someone who doesn’t want me to use heroin, then I agree to that. I’m sure society would innovate ways to track a person’s behavior over time. You don’t get to mess over banks too often, for instance.
LikeLike
Erik: How would slavery be policed under anarchy? If I have weapons and another guy does not, who stops me from making him my slave? Of making a woman my sex-slave?
I have heard from about 6 people in my life that you get jaded very quickly with that…
LikeLike
Joel – What are the prescriptions for government in Romans 13
Erik – That you have one?
LikeLike
Erik, “Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church” (which one?). How old-fashioned. What does John Milbank say? What does John Courtney Murray say?
LikeLike
Erik, this site — surprise — is not a means of grace. What is said here stays here (sort of). I’m willing to let people interact with Greg. If you don’t want to, that’s fine. You may also flame him (no burning bosoms though).
Oh, the power!
LikeLike
Joel,
Here is where I think the “legalizing drugs will get rid of the violence” argument is suspect:
What happens to people who get hooked on drugs? They become unproductive.
How do unproductive people support themselves? Either by receiving welfare or committing crime. Anarchists don’t like welfare and no one likes crime, which tends toward violence.
My best friend in junior high became a drug addict in 10th grade. He mostly smoked pot. He went from being normal in 9th grade to staying in his room 90% of the time, coming to school 10% of the time, and stealing money from his mom to feed his habit in 10th grade. After my sophomore year of college he solved his problems by putting his rifle in his mouth and pulling the trigger.
Hard-drug addicts are even worse. As we legalize marijuana there will be a consequence of many lives becoming unproductive. If we legalize harder drugs it will be far worse.
You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you penalize.
LikeLike
Zrim, I don’t see where the Bible allows for nation-state construction. Under what morality do you have the right to create a state? How did America do in casting off the English and subjugating or killing the Indians? If you have an ungoverned people somewhere, what do you do with the people who don’t want you to be Emperor in your new nation state? I don’t see this addressed in the Bible, yet there is prescriptions for the behavior of those that find themselves in that situation. Deconstruction of the state or the construction of a new state would be apples to apples. For instance, there are regulations for those that find themselves as slaves, but I don’t see a lot about the Biblical way to make slaves.
Regarding your P.S. I think that the WSC has good things to say here: Q. 64. What is required in the fifth commandment?
A. The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.
Q. 65. What is forbidden in the fifth commandment?
A. The fifth commandment forbiddeth the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongeth to everyone in their several places and relations.
LikeLike
quote: “legalizing drugs will get rid of the violence”
didn’t we just see on Old Life what happens in later life when you do drugs 24/7 in your youth?
LikeLike
I heartily approve of this thread.
Power indeed.
LikeLike
D.G. – You may also flame him (no burning bosoms though).
Erik – Not lighting any matches around Greg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bC_3cNH34&list=PLFR5oBql5TEskTfVTS05TspAAU0SS2e9F
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think I missed the point of your P.S. earlier. Taxes only remain relevant in a sense, the one I was trying to allude to with my quoting the WSC. (Perhaps a paying up your fees on a private toll road is analogous.) It is similar to biblical comments about slavery. When slavery is eliminated, are those passages about it irrelevant? It seems as though you are reading the Bible as if the important stuff is what has to do with you personally, and not its purpose in redemptive history.
LikeLike
Joel,
You do a good job arguing your points without coming off as a tool.
I would love to see a debate between you and a hardcore theonomist.
Not enough to join an actual OPC and witness it every Sunday…
LikeLike
Erik,
Are you sure that your unproductive friend was lazy because of the drugs, or might it had more to do with welfare? My guess is that he might have had more social pressure to stop the drugs if his reliance on welfare was stopped first. A little bit of hunger could go a long way toward becoming productive.
Re: Romans 13 prescriptions for Governments… Does the 1 Peter passage on the unbelieving spouse require you to have one? Does regulations about how to treat your master mean that you must be a slave or that we shouldn’t have a society without masters/slaves? Etc.
LikeLike
Joel,
He was in 10th grade. People who are drug addicts f**k up their brains. They are no longer rational actors. That’s my point. They don’t just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They’re basket cases.
My guess is that you are about 23 and this is all theoretical for you. Weigh back in at 43.
LikeLike
Life is struggle enough, unless you were born rich, even without destroying any portion of your brain or personal drive through kicks and giggles in youth.
always a red flag when one argues the finer points of decriminalizing drugs…
LikeLike
Joel, 2kers of the sort here see the Bible less as a handbook for provisional life and more a revelation for eternal life, so no, that’s exactly not how I’m reading it. But the same 2kers are often accused of being too otherworldly, when in fact we are just as interested in how the Bible would have us live now as any 2k critic. And despite your own attempts, it still escapes this 2ker how to square biblical ethics with anti-government philosophy.
LikeLike
Erik, does prison make him a better, more productive person? You have to explain how the government has fixed his situation. You are arguing without evidence that anarchy would make him worse or that more people would be like him. Yet I could show how drug legalization offers more opportunities for social action to mitigate drug addictions.
You got my age wrong. Even so, I don’t see how getting older is going to change the fact that I’ve never lived under anarchy. I suspect that I’ll grow more jaded about the power of government to make people more moral over time. Your comment did succeed in making me want to use one of Bryan’s lines about handwaving. I think it’s time for you to repent for making me want to sound like a Papist.
LikeLike
Joel, by your reasoning the spousal passages wouldn’t mean we’d have to have unbelieving spouses (huh?), it would mean we should do away with the institution of marriage. So your the political version of the “hey, man, it’s just a piece of paper” cohabitaters.
LikeLike
Zrim, I get the feeling that you and Erik are equating anarchy with libertinism. That’s not what I’m advocating.
LikeLike
Joel,
I’m not saying I favor prison for addicts. I am saying I don’t favor an unfettered free market for any product that anyone wants to consume. I think the only way anarchism makes sense is if you have a really optimistic view of human nature. I don’t have one.
LikeLike
Joel,
How would you handle prostitution, child prostitution, pornography, and child pornography under anarchism?
If there’s no state, who would enforce sanctions against violations, if there would be such a thing? A neighborhood watch?
LikeLike
Think of it as a change of jurisdiction. You don’t allow those things in your jurisdiction, and refuse to serve those that do… or not. You have to take more responsibility for what is allowed instead of ceding responsibility to the Feds. You can pay people to ensure justice and security according to your or biblical standards.
LikeLike
So a bunch of dirtballs come together in an anarchist society. They decide there is a great demand in the free marketplace for pedophilia. They decide to buy a bunch of guns, go out and kidnap some boys, and open “The Dirtball Fun Times Boys Ranch” out in the sticks.
I guess I’ll call the Methodists to take up arms and go do something about it.
There’s a reason when a country descends into anarchy the residents get the hell out as quickly as they can — they’re then called “refugees”.
I’ll disengage at this point. Thank you for the conversation.
LikeLike
Joel,
Is there an era or nation or any place that you can point to, where free markets reigned and there was a limited government?
Do you believe Singapore or the US, in a particular era are representative of your vision?
LikeLike
Joel, no, I’m equating it with an absence of human government, like men relating to women in the absence of holy matrimony. And neither does the Bible endorse. But if as you say to Erik there is in your conception someone not allowing something within a jurisdiction (voila) you have human government. Again, that’s not anarchy. You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Incontheiveable!
LikeLike
Erik, these dirtballs just made a government.
Zrim, fine, call it Voluntaryism.
Luther, I could, but that is quite a broad topic.
LikeLike
Joel – Luther, I could, but that is quite a broad topic.
Luther – C’mon…pretty please…I’m trying to calibrate your thinking…when has there been free markets and a weak government.
LikeLike
Luther, maybe later when I don’t have to type on my phone…
LikeLike
Erik –
You write, “I think the only way anarchism makes sense is if you have a really optimistic view of human nature. I don’t have one.”
To quote Robert Higgs, “People say that we anarchists are dreamers and utopians. Well, I have been called many names in my long life, but “dreamer” was never one of them. Indeed, my steadfast commitment to realism has often led to my being described as a pessimist.
In any event, I maintain that the statists are the true dreamers and utopians. The anarchist yearns to try an experiment in freedom, but the statist remains stubbornly opposed to such an experiment notwithstanding that thousands of years of experience have shown beyond all doubt that the state is intrinsically evil, destructive, and a constant threat to whatever liberties the people, for the time being, have managed to preserve or wrench from it. Statists think it is realistic to suppose that they can reform the state, that they can elect “good leaders” who will change the way it operates and always has operated, that constant inroads on their liberties are but transitory events, and that eventually they will be able to make the leopard change his spots and lie down peacefully with the lambs.
As between the anarchist and the statist, then, who is the true dreamer?”
LikeLike
Traditionally we’re more into nihilists than anarchists around here:
LikeLike
Court decisions are never essays on culture except when they are essays on culture. In the case of the photographer refusing the gay wedding, a concurring opinion of the New Mexico Supreme Court ends:
{91} On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins [the photographers] are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
{92} In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.
LikeLike
Tyler, quoth another: “No, I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist. At some point the world dumps on everybody. Pretending it doesn’t happen makes you an imbecile, not an optimist.”
But the alleged thousands of years that prove the “intrinsic evil” of human governors is trumped by the apostle who saith that rulers and “authorities are ministers of God” and “God’s servant for your good.” How can ministers and servants of God be intrinsically evil without necessarily saying that God himself is intrinsically evil?
LikeLike
As I get older and my childlike faith becomes more valuable, it is harder to put up with those who just read the first pages of the introduction to the Christian Dummy’s Guide to Libertarian Utopia.
Back to work now, things to do….
LikeLike
mm- what a pile of egalitarian crap that decision is. Typical leftists revisionism. Where property rights were once sacrosanct now we need to “leave space”. All our property is community property. We know where that road leads.
If the NMSC had actually ruled on the NM Constitution I would not have a problem with such a decision, if that was NM law. Why are the NMSC Justices pretending to be USSC Justices? Resolve that problem and we can all leave in relative peace.
LikeLike
“That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”
Glue and lubrication in the same sentence?
Elmer’s & K.Y. Jelly should put some sort of cooperative marketing plan together based on this.
LikeLike
Gas, all I can say is the issue in that case is interesting. If the government requires a photography to do commerce in a gay wedding, is that unlawful coercion of speech? The government could not coerce someone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and couldn’t compel a New Hampshire motorist to have “Live Free or Die” on his license plate. Is this like those? In those cases the plaintiffs were required to directly and verbally express a government message. Those were also non-commercial contexts. So it may be an uphill battle, but it isn’t far-fetched to say photographic images are a kind of speech and, in this case, speech in which the photographer does not want to engage. It’s a little strained so likely a loser but it has caught the attention of the SCOTUS so we’ll see.
Erik, yeah, glue and lubrication. There’s legal writing for you. Take in a law review article sometime – brutal.
Back to Gas: well, there’s the Amish model and then there’s the winner-take-all, zero sum game models. What is your model for co-existing?
LikeLike
The context for all these cases appears to be the civil rights of an aggrieved minority group – think African Americans and Fair Housing laws. If you think you can not rent an apartment to a black person because you don’t like black people, get out your checkbook.
If you think you can let an old guy go from his job because you don’t like old people, get out your checkbook.
If sexual orientation or identity is defined as a protected minority group in your state or in the U.S. as a whole now (or someday) and you don’t want to do business with those types of people, get out your checkbook.
Those are just the cold, hard facts.
LikeLike
mm- I don’t see it as a free speech issue. The photographers production is his property which he should be free to sell or not as he sees fit (as long as there is no coercion, theft, or fraud involved). The gov’t in this case has essentially said that his property (photography production) is a common good which the photographer loses control over, which effectively nullifies his private property rights.
My model is decentralization. The broad parameters of the Constitution allows the Feds to check the power of the States, which by default are allowed to set their own laws, on a strict, limited basis. Likewise, local communities are able to establish their own laws which each State can check based on their individual constitutions. Stricter prohibitions and restrictions should occur at the local level and broader rights allowed at the Federal level.
So, for example, Colorado Home Rule towns are allowed to prohibit the sale or cultivation of MJ. Don’t like MJ? Work at the local level to prohibit it. The Feds have no constitutional basis for it’s restriction.
LikeLike
So, Gas, can a business refuse to serve blacks or Jews under your system? Personally, I’d refuse to serve Methodists.
LikeLike
mm- Should a local KKK affiliate be forced to admit blacks to their group? Should Reformed people be forced to admit Methodists into their churches? Hyper egalitarianism is irrational. We all discriminate in many ways, every day.
The Feds job is not to glue or lubricate. It’s purpose is to allow self determination to individuals and communities.
LikeLike
Gas: dodge.
LikeLike
Gas – Should a local KKK affiliate be forced to admit blacks to their group?
Erik – The average African American’s IQ is too high to want to join.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elw9HZfqt2g
LikeLike
Gas – Should Reformed people be forced to admit Methodists into their churches?
Erik – Not an issue in the OPC. Only officers have to Confess the Westminster Standards.
The government is uninvolved in this anyway, so it’s a non sequitur.
LikeLike
The only way to win this argument is to argue against minority group status with regards to anything having to do with sex, but, once again, that argument was lost 40 years ago, so unless we’re going to go back and undo the sexual revolution, good luck.
LikeLike
mm- I’m not a dictator over anyone; not even in my house- I don’t pretend to need to tell a business what it can or cannot do- except for the biblically mandated prohibitions against coercion, theft, and fraud- then I will demand governmental coercion against them.
So I take it you wouldn’t put up a stink if your local Presby church is forced to listen to a John Wesley sermon?
LikeLike
Attempts to undo the sexual revolution have fallen on hard times of late. First Vision Forum collapsed, now this:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/03/02/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-on-leave-following-abuse-allegations/
LikeLike
Erik- your local OP church is evil because it discriminates in it’s leadership against women, gays, methodists, etc…
Surely to follow…
LikeLike
Gas: red herring.
You have nothing.
LikeLike
Gas – Erik- your local OP church is evil because it discriminates in it’s leadership against women, gays, methodists, etc…
Erik – This is where the First Amendment comes in…and 2K.
People think gays will be the thing that breaks the church’s back. Really?
Less than 5% of the population is gay. The other 95% are going to work that hard to persecute the church on their behalf?
I doubt it, but it makes for a nice political fundraising letter.
LikeLike
Sheesh mm. It’s not that difficult to follow, that the level of governmental coercion should vary, with the local level being afforded a greater level of coercive powers and the federal powers limited to a far greater degree. I have clearly answered despite the imprecision of your question.
I would think your avoidance of the question of your inconsistency with regards to how your church can operate differently than a business needs to be answered, no?
LikeLike
Gas – I would think your avoidance of the question of your inconsistency with regards to how your church can operate differently than a business needs to be answered, no?
Erik – Because one is a church and one is a business?
That was the problem with the Arizona law. Every individual and every business would have been turned into its own little church.
LikeLike
Apparently one thing that is sorely lacking in the Christian business community is an attitude of professionalism. Think about physicians, including Christian physicians, who have offered medical care to gay people for years. I know a man who is a urologist. He’s treated gay people. He’s dealt with disturbing medical conditions that afflict gay people. As a professional, however, he’s done his job. His treating them has nothing to do with whether or not he approves of their lifestyles. This is what professionals do.
LikeLike
Erik- reducing the 1st Amdmt to strictly a religious issue is simplistic. There’s no constitutional basis for thinking the religious clause received special status. It’s part of a whole.
LikeLike
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
LikeLike
Gas,
The problem arises when you or others start to speculate that the government is going to start making churches do this or that for which there is no precedent.
LikeLike
Erik- check with the Canadians and Brits then get back with me.
LikeLike
Gas,
You make my point. They lack the First Amendment.
LikeLike
Gas,
They are also way more secular than we are. There is still a large contingent of Christian voters in the U.S. A large contingent of anything means that there are politicians hungry to make that group happy. Gay rights is a no-lose proposition for the Democratic Party so they push that agenda — to a point. Once it got to the point where Churches were being told what to do there would be a backlash and it would become a political loser for them — and they would back off. This is why Christians flip out far too much about these hot button political issues. These things ebb and flow.
LikeLike
This is also why 2K folks are way more concerned about the church become lame and impotent from within than we are concerned about the culture war going on outside the church. If you want to lose the culture war, dumb down the church and stop catechizing Christians. When we are turning out Christian sex manuals and making lame attempts to transform the city (and “all things” while we’re at it), all the while ignoring the basics like sound gospel preaching and catechesis, we are asking for lame, immature Christians who won’t be able to recognize biblical truth if it bites them in the butt.
We just need to routinely hit singles as opposed to home runs.
LikeLike
Erik- I think your optimism is naive. Canada and the Brits have religious freedom laws. That’s why the 2k proposition offered here is self-defeating. It works as long as there is religious freedom. When the gov’t begins to coerce churches you’re back to a single kingdom- and 2k becomes naught.
LikeLike
Gas – Canada and the Brits have religious freedom laws
Erik – Then why aren’t they working? In the U.S. when freedom gets violated lawyers get hungry, people get sued, money changes hands, and the situation gets corrected. Something doesn’t add up.
LikeLike
Gas – That’s why the 2k proposition offered here is self-defeating. It works as long as there is religious freedom. When the gov’t begins to coerce churches you’re back to a single kingdom- and 2k becomes naught.
Erik – Actually 2K still works. If the government tells the church how to worship we ignore them and take our lumps. Persecution may be part of the deal. That’s no surprise.
Where we disagree is I think we’re far from that.
LikeLike
Erik- the math is easy. When Christians fail to protect themselves and others a secular gov’t will take the opportunity to impose a secular worldview. The secular lawyers all agree with the laws of secular State.
So the irony is that the unrequited fealty shown to the State actually leads to oppression. It’s the Church playing the battered wife.
LikeLike
Gas, you’ve created a fictional hyper-egalitarian world that doesn’t exist. But that’s the problem with worldview thinking – imagining a world of raw principles unaffected by institutions, traditions, and common grace and imagining that a response to that fictional world is necessary. In this world no one is making Methodists preach in my church or do any of the other horribles you mention.
What I’ve asked is for your response to the judge’s vision of a society that gives & takes and tries to live together. But maybe you have a tic against cooperating with unbelievers in the civil realm. Your idea seems to be that merchants should have the liberty to withhold services based on any number of whims. So racism, religious bigotry, and total whim can deny you a motel when you’re tired of driving at midnight. You wouldn’t want to live in the world of your creation. And the Methodists wouldn’t want to live in a world of my creation. The task is to work towards a society in which we can peaceably live together. That’s not accomplished when every faction insists on dominating.
PS I don’t think a Methodist could affirm the OPC membership vow.
LikeLike
Gas – The secular lawyers all agree with the laws of secular State.
Erik – Dude, you do not know lawyers very well. Lawyers go where they can make a buck. One oppressed person is as good as the next. You’ve been reading Jay Sekulow’s e-mails too long.
LikeLike
Gas – “a secular gov’t will take the opportunity to impose a secular worldview. The secular lawyers all agree with the laws of secular State.”
Well, can you then tell us how the SCOTUS came to its ruling on Hosanna-Tabor?
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/a-time-to-clap-for-the-united-states-supreme-court/
Or the Bronx Household of Faith Decision, also at PB? Worldview thinking replaces observation with ideology.
LikeLike
One fact that people lose sight of is that a gay photographer or florist can not deny service to a Christian in a state where a Christian photographer or florist can not deny service to a gay person. If sexual orientation is protected, religious affiliation is as well. It works both ways.
LikeLike
But could GAS-X live with a chapter in WCF that would have magistrates make civic room for Methodists (and papists, and, and, and, and):
“. . . no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Or is that also “a pile of egalitarian crap”?
LikeLike
This is the point at which Jed enters in his reasonable and suave way, and Gas immediately folds. If history is any guide, anyway.
LikeLike
Erik – Dude, you do not know lawyers very well. Lawyers go where they can make a buck. One oppressed person is as good as the next. You’ve been reading Jay Sekulow’s e-mails too long.
Hey, Erik! MLM and I resemble that remark.
LikeLike
Richard,
Private sector lawyers who takes cases like these on contingency, and there are a lot of them (and they’re hungry in this legal economic climate).
It sucks in some ways, but it’s also a nice check on people screwing with other people. Do it and you’ll pay.
LikeLike
mm- The picture I drew isn’t fictional, as evidenced by the British and Canada, and the trend is seen by all except those who veil themselves in some homespun optimism.
I’m taking the position of peace whereby people are free to associate with whom they please free of governmental interference in that process. Let’s turn your question around. Would I prefer to live in a world where the gov’t denies my ability to worship but I can stay at any motel? No.
p.s. The gov’t will tell the OPC their membership vows are illegal.
LikeLike
Oh?
Iggs, are you a churchman? I’m (all about me) in deep, opc member vows since 2011, ordination vows since 2007.
I’ll have to read this thread. I wonder how you conclude this. My only point here is to redirect to what vows you’ve taken, or church you go to.
If you want bring it up.
Later iggy.
LikeLike
MM and Jed,
I have a two-fold question for you because I am not too knowledgable on business and business law. Government already regulates businesses in more ways than one can count. Government regulate how you advertise your product, imposes environmental regulations, regulates where you can operate a business (zoning laws), regulates how one can be fired, how many hours he works without a break, enforces laws concerning proper safety equipment and cleanliness, regulates how much you pay your employee (minimum wage laws), consumer protection laws, etc… The government says, if you want to run a business in this country in which we have been appointed to protect the public, you must abide by these rules. Putting aside whether business would flourish under less regulations and if some do more harm than good, the government surely has a right to make such regulations. And Christians, though generally disagreeing with what they consider over-regulation, submit to these rules when running a business. But then when the government also states that we must not discriminate who we sell our products to, some Christians suggest that now their consciences are violated and they cannot submit to this regulation.
So my two-fold question is; first, isn’t this an inconsistent position, or is there something about this regulation that sets it apart from all the others? And second, is it illegitimate to come to the conclusion that it seems Christians only put their foot down when they are forced to provide services to homosexuals, thus what we are really dealing with here is old-fashioned discrimination?
LikeLike
“Hillary Clinton will deliver the Saturday, April 26, morning keynote address for the 2014 United Methodist Women Assembly April 25-27 in Louisville, Ky.” http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/hillary-clinton-to-speak-at-umw-assembly
Mikelmann might finally have a point on this Methodist stuff. I’m not giving any Methodists a swig of whiskey.
LikeLike
I think that igasx is right in that there is no principled difference between requiring the florist to serve gays and demanding that the OPC change their vows. Since the principled difference was eliminated with the Civil Rights Act, laws will simply conform to whatever the mob demands. I don’t know if that will go against the OPC anytime soon or not. I’m guessing not.
LikeLike
mm- I don’t recall folding but that may be because I perceive that Jed and I are pretty close on the issues. I’m thinking your perception of my stance is askew.
LikeLike
Todd, it looks like you’ve answered your question for the most part. It’s the horrible du jour, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Joel, “I think that igasx is right in that there is no principled difference between requiring the florist to serve gays and demanding that the OPC change their vows.”
Joel, the external world is not a presuppositional system. Our world doesn’t consist in disembodied principles of logic running roughshod over institutions and the first amendment. More concretely, commerce is treated differently than religion.
LikeLike
MM,
I didn’t want to answer my own question, I wanted input whether I was missing something in the way I perceived all this.
LikeLike
mm- As the pendulum swings away from personal liberties towards the mobs definition of the common good, institutions and laws will necessarily change. No presuppositional thinking needed. History is evidence enough. Is the Boys Scouts the same institution it was 10 years ago? Have they been roughshodded?
LikeLike
More sympathetically, Todd, this is a big social upheaval. It takes time to adjust and see that the world is still spinning on its axis, especially when involvement in the gay ceremony itself is the flash point.
LikeLike
Iggs, don’t mind the peanut gallery, but on to the boy scouts now?
Yer jumpin’ around bud. I get your not happy about things politically. It’s your ecclesiastical leanings that I’m worried about.
It’s how I treat those I care for. Like Tvd.
LikeLike
Gas, I’ve never been a big fan of putting boys in military-style uniforms and requiring them to take oaths to the generic god of America.
Is forming a mob the best way to calm a mob? Sounds inflammatory.
LikeLike
ABs- I would think that “natural law” implies a certain ordering of things such that if x then y?
What are you looking for? a membership card? baptismal record? Profession of faith statement? Analysis of the Heidelberg Catechism?
LikeLike
mm- So we should be thankful that the gov’t has coerced them to bow to the god of egalitarianism?
LikeLike
mm- “Joel, the external world is not a presuppositional system. Our world doesn’t consist in disembodied principles of logic running roughshod over institutions and the first amendment. More concretely, commerce is treated differently than religion.”
Joel – People do make arguments from time to time, and since the principled objection seems to be obliterated, it becomes a matter of willingness for people to point out the obvious hypocrisy of the laws. I just think that that time will be later rather than sooner.
I don’t think that igasx’s 1k solution is right, though.
LikeLike
Joel- my comment about 1k was not a solution that I proposed but rather the consequence of christian passivity.
LikeLike
iggy, the 2k view offered here is the one you find in the U.S. revisions to the Westminster Confession, the same revisions that informed the republicanism and federalism of the U.S. Constitution. How is that self-defeating? It was not a magistrate who could call church councils and preside over them that was the view behind the U.S. Constitution. It was not the antithesis which regarded all human affairs as a wrestling match between evil and righteousness.
If you want to abandon the American founding and give to government more power than it should have in order to stop evil, fine. It’s a free country. Be like Finney. But don’t mischaracterize 2k.
LikeLike
diggy, I’ve been arguing just the opposite. I want to give more power to local communities and much less to the Feds. That won’t be accomplished with Presbys crying, “Peace, Peace”, when there is no peace.
LikeLike
iggy, who’s crying peace? We’re the ones who believe in the church militant instead of Christ’s kingdom as the land of chocolate.
LikeLike
igasx – That won’t be accomplished with Presbys crying, “Peace, Peace”, when there is no peace.
Luther – Uh, I think your about a couple of hundred years to late for that. Apparently, according to your logic, the white flag was sent up when Anglo-Protestants needed cheap Roman Catholic labor from Europe. So….good luck with your Romanist war buddies.
LikeLike
In Slate:
____
I was a best man at a same-sex wedding 23 years ago, and I was a fan of gay marriage even before that. But I’m disturbed by what I see today. We’re stereotyping and vilifying opponents of gay marriage the way we’ve seen gay people stereotyped and vilified. This is a deeply personal moral issue. To get it right, we need more than justice. We need humanity.
_________
The Economist:
______
The aim of legal same-sex marriage is equality under the law, not the criminalisation of a certain popular strain of Christian doctrine. The freedom to run a business in accordance with religious convictions that were recently all-but-universal is, like the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, a freedom worth having. Can’t we have legally-binding gay weddings and photographers who won’t shoot them? That seems nice for everybody. Let’s do that.
______
Andrew Sullivan:
_______
As for the case for allowing fundamentalists to discriminate against anyone associated with what they regard as sin, I’m much more sympathetic. I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me.
Yes, they may simply be homophobic, rather than attached to a coherent religious worldview. But so what? There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. If we decide that our only response to discrimination is a lawsuit, we gays are ratcheting up a culture war we would do better to leave alone. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots, if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance.
______
All are “secularists” in favor of SSM. At least one is gay. None wants the supposed logically necessary result of persecuting Christians over SSM.
Gas?
LikeLike
mm- yes, the libertarian way, as I have been propounding, is the way out. The youth, lead by a Lutheran raised old man, are trending in that direction. But the old guard postmodern pluralists with their agenda of defining society according to group identity and using governmental coercion to rectify perceived oppressions will not go quietly into the night. As long as they can affect the populace to vote according to their ideology, and retain their power through sentimental appeals, we will be stuck in this culture war.
So I’m not totally pessimistic but neither am I naive to believe that things will work themselves without any effort to fight these anti-liberty opponents. I’m happy to join with pagans of all varieties to ensure liberty for all.
LikeLike
gas, “lead by a Lutheran raised old man”?
LikeLike
M&M, false secularist consciousness. They’re not being truly secular (or so I’ve heard feminists and African Americans say about similar defections from the tribe).
LikeLike
Ron Paul
LikeLike
Gas, I’m not going to jump you for liking Ron Paul. During the Presidential debates he had both the best and the worst ideas. But he never had a chance at developing a broad base because, among other reasons, Americans don’t want to elect pure ideologues. The SNL “let puppies die” spoof captured that piece pretty well.
LikeLike
Gas – But the old guard postmodern pluralists with their agenda of defining society according to group identity and using governmental coercion to rectify perceived oppressions will not go quietly into the night.
Erik – There are no radicals like Boomer radicals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cxgeQkK-o
Of course with my luck they’ll all make it to 100.
LikeLike
mm- The ideological source isn’t necessarily the best leader. Rand is little softer around the edges. He’s positioning himself differently than his dad. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Erik- For an extended portrait of Boomers I recommend “House of Cards”.
Excuse me now while I dissect their depravity.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 4, 2014 at 8:32 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Say I object to funding war. I determine that 30% of the federal budget goes toward defense, so I withhold 30% of my taxes. I face fines or jail time.
But nobody’s making that argument or distinction, EC. that’s why your objection isn’t valid.
Say my brother objects to black people. He is a landlord and decides not to rent to them. He faces government fines and civil damages.
Race–to which your born, has nothing to do with gay marriage, which is an act,/I.
,I.
Say my sister objects to gay people. She runs a florist shop and decides not to sell flowers to them for their wedding in a state that includes gay people as a protected class. She faces government fines and civil damages.
Who is moral in their stance and who is not?
Ditto here. You can’t discriminate against a person–but now the state is telling us we can’t discriminate against conduct, in this case making a joke of the institution of marriage, which has the social purpose of protecting children, not acts of sexual gratification.
LikeLike
“…there is no principled difference between requiring the florist to serve gays and demanding that the OPC change their vows.”
I guess I have to ask what a “principled difference” is. From a legal perspective, there is certainly a huge difference between running a church and running a for-profit business that holds itself out as a place of public accommodation. Businesses are free to elect not to operate as places of public accommodation, and can thereby avoid these laws. They won’t do that, though, because it would cost them business.
Lastly, I suspect that this stuff will all go the way of the do-do bird in a few years. There’s just no good reason why one’s social identity ought to be defined by one’s base sexual attractions. A lot of LGBT people, especially in elite circles, have largely dumped the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” etc., and elect not to define any identity. If the revivalists and cultural transformationalists hadn’t prostrated themselves before modernist concepts like “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” and elected to confer social rewards on the former and social umbrage on the latter, we wouldn’t have this mess. So, really, they only have themselves to blame.
LikeLike
Related to my last point…
I would recommend Hannon’s article “Against Heterosexuality” that appeared in First Things recently. It does a great job of deconstructing the nonsensical terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The prescriptions are a bit weak, as they essentially boil down to “convert to Papism.”
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:33 am | Permalink
Related to my last point…
I would recommend Hannon’s article “Against Heterosexuality” that appeared in First Things recently. It does a great job of deconstructing the nonsensical terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The prescriptions are a bit weak, as they essentially boil down to “convert to Papism.”
Aye, excellent article. Even 2kers should and should be able to give coherent arguments for the natural law.
[That the Papists can and Reformation often can’t–or won’t–is the Scandal of the
Evangelical</strike? Reformed Mind.]“…on earth as it is in heaven.”
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:01 am | Permalink
Tom, you and your
HTML.
Work on it, emoticon.
What a man says, Andrew, not how he says it.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
Read, learn, think, pray. Comment if necessary, if moved by the spirit. Rinse, lather, repeat.
LikeLike
Does anyone know why almost every thread here it seems starts somewhere of Darryl’s chosing, and always leads back to LGBT issues?
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:33 am | Permalink
Does anyone know why almost every thread here it seems starts somewhere of Darryl’s chosing, and always leads back to LGBT issues?
There’s a reason for that, Andrew. Now stop harassing the HTML errors and do some damn reading.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
Learn the natural law. Learn your Bible. The natural law and the Bible are never in conflict. Ask Darryl. Ask your Bible, same thing.
LikeLike
Tom, if you want, I shared ever so slightly, here.
I rarely share my opinions out here. The medium is to dicey. Talking with friends at church on hot button issues is my preferred method.
Live in person, not on blog.
But reading you (and all) helps me gather data, and learn.
That’s all. Peace.
LikeLike
iggy, you mean the original series? (Why don’t the Brits get any respect?)
LikeLike
But Darryl ain’t my pastor. Try this:
But your riff is on the right track, Tvd.
LikeLike
Gas – Erik- For an extended portrait of Boomers I recommend “House of Cards”
Erik – Everyone is raving about that lately (even more than during the first season). It’s on my list. I’m watching “Blue Jasmine” right now.
The wife and I are watching “Undeclared”, Paul Feig & Judd Apatow’s follow-up to “Freaks & Geeks”. Funny.
LikeLike
Tom,
How are you so sure that sexual orientation and desire is chosen and not inborn?
What if people can’t help it any more than their skin-color or gender?
It seems an odd thing to choose, given the ostracism, persecution & prosecution that homosexuals have faced throughout most of human history.
LikeLike
Erik, watched Twelve years a slave last night. Two thumbs up.
As for HOC, it’s a snoozer. Kevin Spacey had done better work elsewhere.
We will find something fun tonight. Yo.
AB out.
LikeLike
diggy, now that I’m caught up and FU is President I think I shall compare it to the original.
LikeLike
@TVD
Did you read the article? There’s almost nothing in it that relates to natural law, except for the flimsy prescriptions that he offers. It’s not even clear that he understands traditional Catholic natural law theory all that well. He needs to read more stuff written by David Schindler., and less stuff written by crackpots like Robert George and John Finnis.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 8, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink
Tom,
How are you so sure that sexual orientation and desire is chosen and not inborn?
What if people can’t help it any more than their skin-color or gender?
It seems an odd thing to choose, given the ostracism, persecution & prosecution that homosexuals have faced throughout most of human history.
I don’t say it’s chosen, EC. I agree with your argument, although “inborn” may not be the correct mechanism. It could be epigenetic, it could be the result of early childhood experience, or even of habituated sexual response [lesbian sexuality appears to be a different thing entirely from the male version, and indeed seems more mutable].
The question of same-sex attraction is secondary to a) conduct and b) the structure of the family raising children–we know so little yet have taken irrevocable steps to blow up the mom-dad-child paradigm.
Bobby
Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
@TVD
Did you read the article? There’s almost nothing in it that relates to natural law, except for the flimsy prescriptions that he offers. It’s not even clear that he understands traditional Catholic natural law theory all that well. He needs to read more stuff written by David Schindler., and less stuff written by crackpots like Robert George and John Finnis.
At the center is the natural law [and Jesus’s] delineation of the genders:
What we have done is make the sexes interchangable, two of the same sax can be “married,” children raised by Parent 1 and Parent 2.
As for your going off on how [unacceptably] “Catholic” the article is, I don’t see it–it relies on Michel Foucault more than Pope Francis.
IOW, “orientation” is meaningless: We remain male and female. First things first.
LikeLike
Bobby, I thought it was a stimulating article. But did you feel duped at the end? As I read it, “Go to Rome” was not a deus ex machina at the end of the article but its core. That is, the author seems to say there are two major categories: 1) sex for procreation (implied: no contraceptives) and 2) all other sex. Being the suspicious type I do indeed wonder if the article was first and foremost a piece of RC apologetics.
But then FB, that driving force of our societal norms, now has 47 categories to express sexual identity. Actually I don’t know the number, but it’s not 3. When there are that many categories there is the tendency to question the validity of categories at all, so that would seem to fit in nicely with the article.
LikeLike
@TVD
My complaints about the Hannon article largely relate to his forced effort to deny that sexual orientation even exists. There’s no denying that it exists, although it’s questionable whether such a datum should be central to one’s socially constructed identity.
In general, the term “sexual orientation” refers to one’s unconditioned sexual response to a varying array of pornographic images. It seeks to measure a purely biological response. Some number of men (1/3 or so) show a substantial positive response to images of other men, and a portion of those men show a substantially lower positive response to images of women. You can also test this out by employing the “grocery store” test: When you go to the grocery store, do your eyes tend to wander toward attractive men, attractive women, or both?
The big question is not around whether one has a sexual orientation, at least when defined in this way. We all do. Rather, the big question is around whether this information has any useful meaning. Most cultures have generally answered that question in the negative. Ours did as well until about 150 years ago, i.e., in the heyday of the eugenics movement.
It turns out that this datum correlates with almost nothing. Human sexuality is just far more complex and unpredictable than people’s responses to porn. Most men who test as “homosexual” are still sexually attracted to women under other circumstances, such as those that more closely simulate a family context. Yet many of these men endure years of needless shame over their sexual orientation–all because we live in a society that invests so much in this single piece of information. We also live in a society that’s saturated with soft-core porn, so most men are acutely aware of their sexual orientation at a young age, i.e., years before they’ll develop the emotional capacity to relate to women at other levels.
So, I think there’s some value in acknowledging one’s sexual orientation, understanding that it’s merely one piece of a much larger puzzle of our human sexuality. That’s where I disagree with Hannon. There’s value in reflecting on how we’re wired sexually. For one thing, it helps us select a sexually compatible spouse. It also helps us develop a sexually fulfilling relationship within the context of marriage. The terms “male” and “female” say nothing about our sexual desires, and may suggest that those desires are unimportant. Hannon’s prescription is probably an improvement over using the useless categories of “gay” and “straight,” but the improvement may be slight.
I have no idea where we’ll end up on this issue. Our 150-year obsession with heteronormativity (and the concomitant obsession with hyper-masculinity) has led to a situation where men are forced to lie about their sexual desires and to adopt social identities that bear little correspondence to those desires. I think the terms “gay” and “straight” will fall by the wayside. I also suspect that same-sex marriage will be rendered obsolete before it even becomes vogue. After all, nearly all men–including those who test as “homosexual”–can and do have healthy sexual relationships with women. Once “homosexual” men know that their orientation doesn’t doom them to a particular social identity, they will likely prefer to date and marry women. Still, I’d prefer that men make this choice because they have a better understanding of how complex their sexual identities are, and not because they merely think of sex in terms of “male” and “female.”
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke left out another reason homosexuality is unchosen – “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Rom. 6:16. So the tyrant to whom you obey one time becomes your lord from then on.
Also, what about spiritual oppression by an evil spirit?
LikeLike