Now that I have your attention…the title may not be exactly what you are thinking. Followers of Islam and prophet Muhammed are concerned about the superiority of their religion. They refuse to be ridiculed by anyone, as evidenced by the recent upheaval over the Danish cartoons. Many seek to prove their premiere status with violence against those who disagree.
In that sense Islam is the opposite of Christianity. Muhammed is the opposite of Christ. Islam seeks superiority. Chrisitanity embraces inferiority.
Muslims are constantly offended about something. Wizbang has a collection of recent “offenses” to Allah and Islam including an ice cream lid and a tennis shoe.
Christians have, unfortunately, also become obsessed about our representations in the media. From the Book of Daniel to the supposed Will and Grace episode with Brittney Spears hosting a cooking show entitled “Crucifixin’s” (which I actually thought was clever in a blasphemous sort of way).
Muslims and Christians reacted differently to this situation – Muhammed followers burned buildings, Christ followers sent emails to television stations. While I appreciate the fact that Christians did not react violently, I do not believe we are intently following the methods and message of Christ. We spend way too much time trying to make culture like us instead of making ourselves different from culture and there is a huge difference.
In seeking to make culture more “Christian,” we come across as over-bearing, controlling and hostile to freedoms. Many people view Christianity as simply another tool for personal or political power. That is the fault of Christians, we have behaved that way too often. This allows non-Christians to brush off Christianity, and as a result Christ, because they see us like every other group vying for power.
If we sought to make ourselves different from the culture, then those within the culture would observe our Christlike nature, forcing them to make a decision on Him. It would either raise questions that we could answer and point them to Christ or it would cause conviction which would ultimately point them to Christ, as well.
Therefore the question becomes, why do we seek to “defend” ourselves so much. Why are we always so eager to be offended?
I believe part of it, is an honest effort to defend Christianity and the validity of our faith. We must show people that Christianity is truth and no worldview is as complete and comprehensive. I understand, applaud and am part of that battle.
But much of what goes on, surpases the legitimate expression of apologetics to the realm of seeking to not be offended – which is a strange place for a Christian to find themselves.
Recently John Piper perfectly illustrated what should be the difference between Muslims and Christians. He pointed out the differences between our founders:
That’s the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. And for a true follower of Christ enduring suffering patiently for the glory of Christ is the essence of obedience. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11). During his life on earth Jesus was called a bastard (John 8:41), a drunkard (Matthew 11:19), a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), a devil (Matthew 10:25); and he promised his followers the same: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Matthew 10:25).
Islam was founded by Muhammed by the threat of his sword. Christianity was founded by Jesus by the sacrificing of his life. Piper issued his conclusion:
It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. And it means that his followers must be willing to “share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Philippians 3:10).
As Christians, we can let Muslims fight and rage about superiority. Let us be more concerned about following and showing truth. I don’t care about being superior, but I do want to be right.
I do agree that some of the methods we use to affect culture, like the whole Book of Daniel thing (which I was unaware of until after it happened, since I don’t listen to Dobson much), are not really that effective, except in alienating people.
Not that being good or standing up for righteousness will please unbelievers, but I do think we need to get our priorities straight.
However, we are called to be salt and light, and to affect culture (but not try to dominate it with power plays). We also need to form our own subcultures that have enough value that they are easily adopted by the rest of our culture. If we create things that are worthwhile, others will like them as well. The only problem with that idea, though, is that often, those whose thinking is domniated by the “world’s values” may not appreciate what we create, esp. if they are based on kingdom values.
A good example is our alternate “Harvest Parties” at Halloween. Rather than merely attack the idea of Halloween, a lot of churches prepare family-friendly Harvest Celebrations that even unbelievers are beginning to attend because they actually don’t want their children to be doing stuff with the dead, witches, ghosts, and wizards. Admittedly, it’s not a hugely popular thing among unbelievers, but it is one example of how we can provide alternate culture that, based on its own merit, could supplant bad culture over time.
But again, while using market power to turn off TV programs might not be a good, or popular idea, we certainly have the right to complain, maybe even intimidate through our purchasing power (but not, of course, through violence).
I guess my statement can be summed up in do not focus on “being salt and light” to the detriment of “being holy” or different.
I do not want to stop Christians from speaking up about the ills of society, we should. But I think we spend so much time (and money) on those issues, when the easier and more effective thing is to live holy set-apart lives. But that doesn’t raise too much money in the fund raising letters.
I agree, as long as we also continue to engage and contribute to culture, rather than letting it “go to hell in a handbasket” living in our cloisters rather than the real world.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind one bit if you let society go to Hell in a Handbasket – as long as "Hell" is defined as a country where citizens are free to exist alongside other citizens.
Seeker. Seeker? Maybe instead of trying to continue our trend of making homosexual marriage "illegal" you could simply continue preaching on street corners that gays can be changed through therapy. I'd be all for you doing that.
Seeker – this is in no way a call to withdraw from the world to our own bubble, quite the opposite. It is a call for us to engage the world even more, but through our lives instead of (or at least more than) our emails and protest signs.
Sam – We all probably agree more than you know, but I don't know if you understand how much freedom Christianity brings to nations and civilizations. It is no mistake or accident that the nation(s) with the most freedom is the one that has the largest influence of Christianity.
And that the response to said freedom, now that its out of the bag, is to legally scramble as quickly as possible to stuff that cat right back into the bag.
In fact, I'd suggest that the freedoms available to all Americans are greatly limited by those same Christian notions of what is and isn't right.
Sam-
What alternative system to you propose basing our laws, rights and freedoms upon (provided that said system does not subject itself to arbitrary redefinitions of ethical codes and sources of authority)?
Reason, English common law, classical Liberal philosophy (not its modern-day corruption), the lessons and examples of the past.
And christianism is not an "arbitrary rededinition of ethical codes and sources of authority"?
No, Louis, "christianism" is not. In fact, the main issue that you have a problem with has been a part of monotheistic teaching for over 5,000 years. Your rage toward Christians results from their refusal to modify their belief system to fit changes in popular opinion that have taken place over the past 20 years. In this instance especially, it is not orthodox Christianity that is arbitrarily changing the definition of morality.
Reason is not a system; it is the primary tool used for interpreting the system. Pure logic will always be influenced by presuppositions, so my question is what those ideas should be. Classical philosophical liberalism falls short precisely because it is arbitrary. The ethical codes it endorses are, at best, taken from Christianity with the less popular teachings conveniently omitted according to the whims of the individual philosopher. Even if it were possible to revert to the classical form, the corrupt version of today that you mentioned is what will eventually be deciding the law.
I am not too familiar with the specifics of English common law, though I would be appreciate any knowledge of such that you would be willing to share. However, based on what I do know of Post-Renaissance European History, the Reformation played a significant role in the cultural and political development of England. A good contrast would be the impact of the Enlightenment upon similar developments in France. As far as a general code of morality is concerned, remember that both countries experienced revolutions that overthrew existing monarchies and replaced them with representative forms of government. France's is known as the "Reign of Terror" for a reason.
Learning the lessons of history is an excellent idea. This is why the founders of this country refused to establish a state-run church or a church-run state. The separation of the two was to protect both from the corrupting influence of absolute power. As far as serving as an ethical system, I don't see how that's possible. Just as with philosophical liberalism, an existing system is required in order to interpret the lessons and examples of history (i.e. one that values productivity as supreme and places no value on human life would see the abolition of slavery as a national catastrophe).
Finally, the ultimate problem with each of these systems is that they, without modifications, put man or a man as the absolute authority. Thus, all standards and laws exist only as the one(s) in power see fit. While one could argue that Christianity and its code of ethics were arbitrary creations of man, it nevertheless holds that all men are accountable to a higher authority and standard, one that man doesn't have the authority to change at a whim. It doesn't change and redefine itself arbitrarily. So if you have another system in mind that fits that description, I would be eager to hear more about it.
“Finally, the ultimate problem with each of these systems is that they, without modifications, put man or a man as the absolute authority.”
Well, of course they do – and a good thing too. What other authority are we to turn to if not mankind? Oh, yes, I know you christianists will answer God, but I would answer back, what God? Or, perhaps, which God? Since God remains invisible and silent (and probably non-existent), we are forced to turn to “man or a man” anyway for our standards of laws and ethics. If you answer that we turn to the Bible (or other holy book), I return, that these books were written by a man or men and can only be taken on faith anyway. Under your system, it comes down to which man or group of men you believe. The Pope? The Grand Mufti of Cairo? Your local priest/rabbi/imam/cult leader? Who speaks for your “higher authority” and why should we believe them? If the sky were to open and God appear to deliver His edicts I’d agree, but that hasn’t happened. It’s all faith and unsupported belief and/or superstition. Thus, your “ultimate problem” applies in spades to religious authority.
As to your criticism of the systems/thought processes I proposed, at least they don’t involve divine authority which religious leaders and organizations cite to back up their ethical and moral prejudices and superstitions. Even a cursory glance at the history of religion proves this is a disaster for mankind. Using reason, and applying Englightenment principles and classical Liberalism at least doesn’t involve burning its opponets at the stake, or crashing jets into buildings, to achieve its ends. Rather, they incorporate rational mechanisms to achieve consensus and effect change when needed. They also don’t change matters on a whim – if anything, the opposite. They are far more open and un-arbitrary than religious organizations. I’d take a civil court over an ecclesiastical one any day, wouldn’t you?
As to my “rage” at christianists: Yes, I become enraged at injustice. Guilty as charged! But, contrary to your accusations, it’s not because of some “arbitrary changing of the definition of morality” because of 20-year-old changes of popular opinion, but because of 5,000 years of persecution and oppression (often violent) of gay people which continues to this day. Christianism (and the other monotheisms) are the prime villains when it comes to this injustice. When I think of the agony queer kids go through, when I think of the agonies I went through, I become enraged all over again. And when I listen to the bigotry and hate-mongering coming from the likes of Dobson and Robertson and seeker and the pope and all the rest, I become enraged all over again. Every bit of progress we queers have made has had to be fought for against the vehement opposition of christianists and their cohorts. Why else do you think I subscribe to Enlightenment and Liberal principles and reject your religion? It promises redemption and love and acceptance and peace and freedom, but delivers the opposite time and time again. Give me secular humanism and science and reason any day over the darkness and slavery your religious beliefs inevitably deliver.
First of all, subscribing to a Christian system of ethics does not require belief in the Christian tenets of faith. The fact that nearly every ethical code offered by atheistic philosophers is strangely similar (if not identical) to the Christian code is proof enough of that. The problems you have with Christianity as a belief system really are not relevant to the discussion of Christianity as a system of ethics, which is what my initial question regarded.
When a man or group of men is lifted as the highest authority on all matters, especially those of right and wrong, standards of ethics are arbitrary and will be changed without debate. You said we should learn from history. Do not fail to follow your own advice.
Since you have given a cursory glance to religious history, I will offer a cursory rebuttal. Much of the evil committed by the church was done for reasons of political power. This is, unfortunately, almost always the result when a single person has unchecked authority, whether religious or secular. However, the Christian ethical code has a built in standard of accountability (i.e., the Bible) to which nearly everyone currently has access. In the days of rampant abuse, the masses were told not to read the Bible at all, that they couldn’t understand it without a priest “interpreting” it for them. This in itself is contrary to Biblical teachings, although there are often instances were something will be misunderstood without further study. However, this does not mean that biblical scholars are advising people not to read it at all and to simply take their word for what it says.
Christianity does not hold its teachers as the ultimate authority. They are to be held accountable to God and to mankind by the standards expressed in the Bible. Yes, I would prefer that our leaders serve under the authority of an unchanging code, and that they be kept in check by a populace who is thoroughly familiar with that code. Otherwise, when men are the highest authority, what they say is right, always, and is unchallengeable.
You are attacking a misrepresentation of my position. I am not arguing for a religious authority. I am not arguing that the Bible should be the law of the land. I am stating that the freedoms we enjoy are only possible in a society established through the Christian ethical system. If there is another system that meets the previously stated criteria for establishing an ethical code, I would be willing to consider its merits.
Louis makes a good point, that there isnt' much difference between making "man" your authority, and making the Bible, which was written and assembled by men, as your authority.
I think this is why the framers of our state appealed to natural law as representative of God's law – e.g. "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." When it comes to legislation, appeal to religious authority is not good, esp. when you have more than one!
As I have said, though, there are moral issues that are argued as not self-evident (like homosexuality) which legislation should remain neutral on, neither extending specific benefits nor sanctions upon them.
And if someone thinks that their morality (like the acceptance of homosexuality) is a self-evident truth, then they can argue that in the public square. For all we know, they may be right. But I think the natural evidence against such assertions is just as credible, if not more credible.
Funny, I thought we were talking about “Christianity and its code of ethics,” but now you refer to the Christian ethical system as apart from Christianity itself. But, as you admit, many atheist systems propose ethical systems similar to that of Christianity. But why is this strange? Could these agreed upon ethics just be what’s best for humanity regardless of belief system? And why do you claim, or at least assume, that they are the sole property of Christianity? I don’t hold that everything in xianism is bad; on the contrary, it has much that is good. But that good can be had without adhering to any religion at all. My point is that xianism contains and creates too much that is bad.
“When a man or group of men is lifted as the highest authority on all matters, especially those of right and wrong, standards of ethics are arbitrary and will be changed without debate.”
Yes, of course. But my point is that the highest authority must be Man, or mankind, not any group or individual. However, I don’t see how you can have religion without having a man or group of men in control. I suppose each person could be his own ultimate authority, but that wouldn’t really be religion; in fact, that would be what I advocate. I can’t think of anything more arbitrary than religion.
My questions about the existence of your God and the authority of your holy book remain. Why should an atheist or non-xian recognize their authority for anything? One can be ethical without resort to xianism and without its negatives. A free society could be founded upon these ethics without any reference to xianity. And, yes, I’m not a professional historian, but from what I’ve read getting my English degree, I saw a lot about how xianity interacted with European culture that didn’t display its ethics very well. As Diderot put it, “Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the intestines of the last priest.”
You can be ethical, but the consistent testimony of history is that we must appeal to a higher law than the opinions of men – self-evident means something is objectively true whether we like it or not.
The problem with appealing to man, as opposed to higher law discovered (not created) by man, is that it is totally subjective. And when we determine subjectively what is moral or not, we end up being taken down by our fallen nature, hence the phrase “ultimate power corrupts ultimately.” We can’t have the ultimate last say in what is moral because we are given to self-deception, power-mongering, and other selfishness. This is why we must appeal to an objective law outside of ourselves – one that we should strive to obey, or disobey to our peril.
With regard to legislation, it is good to appeal to natural law, not to religion. However, appealing to natural law has it’s limits – even our assumptions with respect to nature can make for wildly different interpretations – like if we assume that animals are a proper model for human morality, we might conclude that infanticide or cannibalism is ok for humans.
For this reason, argument from natural law may be sufficient for making legislation, but for determining what is objectively moral, we may need more information, both empirical (like epidemiologic studies) AND revealed (religion). While appeals to religious authority may not be proper for legislation, they may be more than proper for personal and family value formation. Now, whose revealed truths you believe, if any, depends on who you find trustworthy. If none, that is fine.
And as I said, it is perfectly ok to form value, moral, and ethical decisions based on religious or anti-religious or areligious ideas, and it is even proper to let them motivate you in your public policy goals. It is just not proper to appeal to those authorities to make law.
Daniel
What alternative system to you propose basing our laws, rights and freedoms upon (provided that said system does not subject itself to arbitrary redefinitions of ethical codes and sources of authority)?
I have argued on numerous occaisons that law should be written to protect the rights of those who do not harms others. Hence, as deplorable as drug use is, there is no reason our country should be blowing billions of dollars yearly on a failed drug war. For far cheaper than that, drug sales could be regulated, taxed, and money spent on addiction counseling. I feel the same way about numerous other subjects.
And as for gay marriage, it would be legalized, because gay couples are no better or worse than straight couples. You may not think so – most Christians don’t – but the issue is that gay couples don’t hurt anybody. (And before you go suggesting that gay couples “destroy” marriage, an argument for which there is no evidence, let me point to abusive relationships, celebrity 24-hour-marriages, and our incredibly high divorce rates in general as being evidence for heterosexuality doing far more to destroy marriage than anything else in this country.)
Finally, if we had a country focused on prosecuting only those that hurt others, far more of the horrible people in this country who get away with forms of abuse – abusive parents for example – could be sent to prison, or dealt with, or whatever.
I find this to be far fairer than anything we are doing now.
“The problem with appealing to man, as opposed to higher law discovered (not created) by man, is that it is totally subjective.”
And this “higher law” you propose isn’t? Where do you propose discovering this higher law in a totally objective way? How do you know if it’s objective, or even higher? Yes, I know, you theists think you’ve discovered it (or had it thrust upon you), but that’s just another subjective experience masquerading as objective. You can provide no proof whatsoever for your religion or its “higherness.” You simply assert. I can think of few things more subjective than religion.
The same goes for your “natural law.” As even you admit, it all depends on one’s interpretation.
Sure, you’re free to construct your personal or familial morality based on your religious beliefs, just as I am to reject them. But constructing a government and a system of laws on them is more shaky ground. Despite what Jefferson said, nothing is “self evident” – all is open to criticism, questioning and discussion. And the best system is that which provides the greatest freedom to do just that – and which checks the powerful and the forces of ignorance and oppression. To do that you need much the system our Founders provided. And they wisely kept religion out of the process.
The higher law is “self-evident”. We have to appeal to people’s ability to corporately recognize the larger truths like do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, all men are created equal. These are not man-made – they are self-evident truths that lead to life and happiness. These are objective, “natural” laws. They are not subjective, except that we have to recognize them. And God help us if we don’t because they are true whether we believe in them or not. In fact, they are also known as “wisdom.”
In as much as a religion is in line with these higher truths, it is true. However, in some issues, natural law is not that clear. In those cases, we may want to check with our own human “subjective” logic, as well as sources of revealed truth, like those in religion.
While we must employ our gifts of reason and observation, it is foolish to trust them entirely as if we have no other reference points.
Sam-
I appreciate your ideas. If I’m not too mistaken, it seems that you advocate a semi-libertarian governance of our present system rather than an overthrow of the system itself. By that, I mean you desire to preserve the freedoms and emphasis on individual choice and responsibility that currently exist while reducing the limitations on said freedoms. Aaron’s earlier point, that “it is no mistake or accident that the nation(s) with the most freedom is the one that has the largest influence of Christianity,” should be kept in mind. Again, I’m not arguing for rule by religion, but rather re-emphasizing that those nations with the most freedom share a common influence. Your issue with the current system is its limitations on freedom, and while the libertarian approach addresses some of these, the system itself remains. To my knowledge, there isn’t an overall system that can guarantee those freedoms other than one based on/influenced by Christianity. Personally, I’m partial to the idea of less government involvement, though I’m hesitant to classify myself as a Libertarian, but that is another discussion for another time.
As an aside, I think your statements about the condition of marriage are right on. Where we disagree is that I don’t see how changing its definition would help. Really, it seems to me that each side of the debate is demanding something from the other, and neither side is satisfied with the explanation the other offers (ex., “Prove why it’s a good idea to change the definition of marriage” vs. “Prove why it’s a good idea to discriminate against gay couples”). Until both sides can at least discuss the issue on the same terms, resolution will remain a distant goal. But that’s just my observation.
I repeat, nothing is self-evident. How could it be? Everything is open to question. However, you intimate a way to test these “truths” when you state that they lead to “life and happiness.” This is a testable proposition, and not something which is self-evident. We can use reason and observation to find these things and approve them on a tentative basis. We may come to some kind of wide agreement based on this trial, but not to some objective knowledge.
“Revealed truths,” and the like, are a matter of faith – belief unsupported by evidence – and therefore entirely subjective.
Louis-
“My questions about the existence of your God and the authority of your holy book remain.”
I am doubtless that they do. I am equally doubtless that they will continue to remain, no matter what my response is to your statements. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the ability to put forth a sufficiently eloquent argument to compel you to believe these things against your determination not to. The topic of discussion here is existing (not hypothetical) ethical systems and their impact upon nations. This does not seem to me the appropriate forum for a tangential discussion regarding the validity of the Christian metanarrative. Additionally, I am a guest at this blog, and I am sure that I exhausted my welcome long ago, so I will leave it at that. Minds much greater than I have written long and detailed works about these issues, with much valid debate as to their rational conclusions. If you truly wish to confront these arguments, they are easily found at any library or bookstore.
Well, maybe we need to agree on what self-evident means. Is it something testable or not?
Actually, the more I think about it, Louis, you are probably right in that we are being a bit too simplistic. Check out this post that has more to say about self-evident. I think we might both agree that we are a bit over our heads on this one.
We have to appeal to people’s ability to corporately recognize the larger truths like do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, all men are created equal.
Do you even read what you write Seeker? You believe in both murder – capital punishment – and that all men aren’t created equally. You have stated both of these on NUMEROUS occaisons. Why are you lying?
Daniel,
I am so sick, and so tired, of this nonsense about, “We have to fix straight marriage before we let gays in.” (Most) Christians aren’t going to let gays in. Ever. Doesn’t matter what condition heterosexual marriage is in. Furthermore, (Most) Christians don’t seem to be doing anything about fixing heterosexual marriage. I don’t see Maggie Gallagher or James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or Seeker advocating constitutional amendments banning adultery, or child abuse, or divorce. I see them totally disinterested in fixing marriage; instead, I see a great deal of interest in excluding gays. Why? Because they hate gays.
As for my proposed society, people should have more freedoms than they currently do. Perhaps “Christian” societies allow for more freedom than any other, but there is a point at which those same “Christian” societies cut off the access to freedoms. The point should be that individuals are free to make decisions that don’t hurt other individuals. “Christian” societies regularly prevent this.
Daniel-
Nice evasion.
btw-I have confronted these topics…deeply. I practiced your religion for years and studied it deeply. I have concluded, much to my personal dismay, that it is untrue, a sham and a lie. So sorry.
Do you even read what you write Seeker? You believe in both murder – capital punishment – and that all men aren't created equally. You have stated both of these on NUMEROUS occaisons. Why are you lying?
The same book that says "thou shalt not murder" has a list of capital crimes listed in the next chapter. Do you find that inconsistent? With your simplistic definition of murder (all life taken against a man's will is murder), you probably do.
But the biblical answer is so simple a gradeschooler could understand it. Capital punishment is the taking of a life, but not murder, because the murderer has already given up his right to life by taking someone else's.
Vigilantiism and vengeance killing by individuals is prohibited, but civil government is given the right to execute justice, which includes punishments that fit the crime. If you murder, the society has a right to exact justice (not the same as vengeance) via the civil govt. This is the taking of life, but not murder.
all men aren't created equally
How have I said "all men aren't created equally"? That's an outlandish claim which you don't back up with quotes.
In context, equal doesn't mean that we are all born into the same situations, or have the same abilities. It means we all deserve the same basic rights as humans, regardless of our skin color, religion, race, gender, etc.
But criminals surrender their rights. Adulterers should lose certain rights for sinning. Sin is not a protected status. People who preach violence can lose their right to assembly or speech. If you are referring to my stance on homosexuality, I have consistently said that gays should not be discriminated against in basic rights, but the right to marry is one they have – but marriage between a man and a woman. If they want more than one spouse, a animal for a spouse, or a same sex partner, they are asking for a special right which is contrary to nature, social structure, and morality.
If they want the fiduciary rights, they can give them via legal contracts such as wills and power of attorney. If they want legal status so that they can feel normal, they can forget it – they are pushing to normalize sin! They should feel as normal as anyone else who needs psychiatric help but is in denial. The truth should be all around them telling them to turn back.
Seeker,
As usual, you betray yourself with your writing.
-You claim that the Bible makes it clear that guilty murderers should be put to death – so I can only assume that the death penalty has never, ever, executed an innocent person. Which is why nobody on Death Row has ever been let go…oh, wait. 174 people Seeker, found innocent who would have died. One can assume that the death penalty has killed at least one innocent person. At which point, every Biblical defense of capital punishment falls apart. At that point, our civil government is committing murder. Even by your definition. You seem to have no qualms about this.
-Of course you haven't said all men aren't created equally. You just believe that. And even if we don't debate homosexuality – although you clearly believe that homosexuals aren't your equal, or you wouldn't so enthusiastically try to prevent them from the equal marriage that you and your wife enjoy – we can go back to our debate about capital punishment. You believe that those found guilty of certain crimes should die. Yet it is clear that innocent people are railroaded into convictions. Don't these two realities disagree?
You don't believe the innocent should die, I hope, and yet you propose no moratorium on the death penalty, no fixes for the justice system, no alternatives. It certainly seems as if you believe that some aren't created equally.
-In regard to sin. Since I know that you refuse to believe that your definition of sin shouldn't be written into law, will you at least, while persecuting homosexuals for being born gay, similarly propose regressive laws against adultery? Because, God quite obviously cared about adultery. He put it in his Ten Commandments. You never want to deal with adultery, even though it more than anything is undermining American marriage. As long as you're willing to propose that adulterers should lose the right to marry, then I guess you're at the very least being consistent.
-Finally, aboout gays "forgetting it." That's your argument in a nutshell. Gays should stop trying to feel normal – they're disgusting sinners, and they'll never be normal. That's cruel Seeker. That's just cruel. How you can say that about a human being who is born gay is positively beyond me. Say what you want about me, or my position, but at least I'm not advocating cruelty. (And as for gays wanting to marry animals or multiple partners? Men married to more than one woman does happen in America – in Utah, between some Mormon sects, in the name of Jesus Christ. Don't act like gays are advocating for polygamy, because you know they aren't. And you know the animal marriage argument is a cheap shot.)