After a lot of thinking I realized that the problem isn’t as easy to articulate as I initially supposed. What I thought was going to be a hashing out of the typical liberal complaints against religion in politics was confronted by a challenge that perhaps “open-minded liberalness” isn’t open-minded when it comes to judging religion. If we want to understand perhaps we should allow people their religious morality but just be explicit about the acceptable measures for its place in politics.
The problem of individual morality and politics appears to be separated into three distinct and complex issues. First, how far should we allow our personal beliefs to enter into the public sphere with us and what are our obligations once we arrive with them? Is there a shrinking of a neutral space to discuss issues frequently referred to as moral issues? Second, is there an actual (and legitimate) movement in the nation to convert us from a democracy to a theocracy? Third, is there an active betrayal by GOP leadership exploiting these moral issues in order to recruit a majority that can elect candidates who are significantly more focused on a nationalistic, pro-business agenda than one of morality?
I.
The debate within Christianity as to whether homosexuality is doctrinally wrong is still raging. You can see this just by googling homosexuality and the bible and seeing the contradicting viewpoints amongst church-going members flooding forums. For the purposes of Part I, I am going to make the leap, which I don’t believe is much of one, and assume that the bible says that homosexuality is wrong from the stories of Sodom in Genesis 19, or the quaint suggestion that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination" in Leviticus 18:22, or from any of the other frequently referenced passages against homosexuality.
Once we think we have a clear understanding of what the bible says the only thing one has left to argue is the legitimacy of the Bible. That is not a route that I think would be too effective with many people willing to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so. Thus, there is an obligation not to take the argument in this route but instead, place it in universal terms that don’t end with the challenging of biblical legitimacy.
Instead, we should perhaps address whose rights are being violated by allowing the practice of homosexuality. I don’t think that this is a universal indicator of morality, but gives a great benchmark as to whether the moral issue should be applied to the whole citizenry. Is anyone being wronged in this situation? Is the sole problem that homosexuals are committing themselves to the fires of hell and the Christian obligation is to save them? Shouldn’t they be allowed to choose the fires of hell and not be required by the state to choose one way or the other as long as their actions do not interfere with someone else's freedoms?
The immigrant formation of this country was comprised of many people wishing to escape the forceful persecution by monarchs and other subjective authorities. This is why you see the Bill of Rights to our Constitution largely pointed at deterring monarchy as well as the unjust forcing of governmental power on a population.
I think the obligation of our country is to continue to respect minority rights and not force ideology. If there is a considerable portion of the population which wishes to commit an act frequently called sin but this act does not infringe on another’s rights the state has an obligation to freedom to allow it.
I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It’s my job. –
Please post what I've missed or any further thoughts below.
Next week: Part 2, Can a democratic people elect to be a theocracy? Are we doing it?
Religion in the Military http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist.html?_r=1&ex=1366862400&en=36462b6b00ad4a38&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Alternative views that perhaps the bible is more tolerant than traditionally presented?
www.religioustolerance.org
Obama's Opinion on Faith in the Public Sphere
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
3 comments:
say, heat applied, evaporating the solvent, the solute rocks up as let 'em, long as it doesn't affect me or an interrogatory list toward Cultural Relativism...
then the solute's panhandling, and the question's got money.
if Anna believes that she should not interfere with the view or opinion of Bob, whatev. But what if Bob feels called to interfere with the view or opinion of Cory? Now Allah-sudden Anna's saying Cory knows Cory best, that we are [obligated] to freedom to allow Cory's opinions/decisions/etc., so don't butt in, Bob. But in pressing her laissez-faire, (or, in America, Let's-Play-Fair) attitude, she's, frustratingly, and from out of some goedelian fog, infringing on Bob's freedoms.
The idea destroys itself from within.
impenetrable logic***, however aggravating, and however fishy.
now, i won't pretend to know or understand matters of the state, but i hope i'm not too optimistic to say that it is influenced by the desires of the people in a democracy, and The People is composed, at its zero-one level, of persons (excepting within those few and lucky schizos, where personality might be the quark in the person-proton).
&c., &c.
***out of a mild tingling near my adrenal gland, caused by my disinclination to be called, however fairly, "overly critical", i'll say that the above logic is not my own, and that it is the chewed rib of an essay by Bertrand Russell (I think). The mind believes the logic, but the heart says no, no, it can't be so. Though from that same heart the desire still resonates to discourage some acts which do not interfere with the rights of others' -- suicide is among the most glaring. Should you amend the argument with a "unless it harms the doer" clause? I don't know. I just don't know.
I see the logic.
I think it breaks down when you begin to sort into a public sphere and a private sphere. If someone has personal values that cause them to vote a certain way. It is one thing to challenge the way the vote and another to challenge the reason they vote that way.
And I think this is going to lead into my next post of whether or not we should allow the country to be converted into a theocracy if this is what the majority desires? Is it possible to have a theocratic democracy? Is it fair and just to the world to have a theocracy?
I commend you on addressing a subject some may be uncomfortable with yet should still be part of our national dialogue.
We should never strip people of their dignity by demonizing them and making them out to be different than the rest. It makes it easy for the majority to cast us as other than deserving of the simple rights enjoyed by the many.
I remind people of a time in Europe c. 1930's
Post a Comment