Friday, August 6, 2010
Answering a question about a theocratic state
After I posted Our sad day... and linked it on my Facebook status an interesting discussion occurred between myself and a nephew. This is a nephew that I highly regard because of what he has made of himself and because of how he has overcome adversity with great grace. Nonetheless we strongly disagree on several subjects. Homosexuality is one of them. And the argument has boiled down to a question.
“Aunt Viola, you certainly aren't suggesting that the United States should become a theocratic state, are you? If you are basing the justification to eliminate rights on a verse in which Paul is using a metaphor to encourage a healthy relationship between two people then you really are walking on thin ice.”
I was using Ephesians and Paul’s equation of marriage with the image of Christ’s care for his bride, the Church. I was trying to explain why Christians care so much about this issue and the biblical definition of marriage. But the question led my thinking in a more political direction.
No, I am not advocating for a theocratic state. Given that we are all sinful by nature, I do believe that democracy is the best form of government. However, as I thought about this I think that morality is very deeply tied to democracy and conversely democracy to morality. I think it must be that way or democracy will not survive. And we have a very good example in the twentieth century of a democracy that turned in on its self and died. Many people do not realize that Hitler did not throw out the government of Germany by rebellion but was instead voted into office.
Morality has served the United States well. It helped us as a nation overcome slavery and segregation. It secured the rights of women and led the charge against the use of child labor. But think about this. What if the United States was made up of only those who thought that slavery was acceptable or at least people who didn’t care about the issues of slavery?
So, to go further what if a democracy started out well, changing over time as moral issues were addressed but then suddenly the society became decadent. Suppose everyone, or most everyone in that society either became a murderer by intent or by not really caring. Then the right to all life would be at stake and democracy would die as it did, for that very reason, in Nazi Germany.
Or to address the present: What if most of society is obsessed with all forms of sexuality including deviant forms or else they simply don’t care about sexual morality one way or the other. After one particular group demands their rights others will follow. Remember this is a moral issue- so the rights demanded will be a demand for new forms of morality most of which are not moral in the traditional sense of morality. So democracy will become disconnected from morality and lose its importance.
And many will lose, when democracy is lost. Oh not just Christians and Jews or even atheists, but those who wish to live a homosexual lifestyle will lose. They did in Germany.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This discussion would proceed much more profitably (and probably much more honestly) if we could avoid the "do you want to live in a theocracy" evasion. Every state is built on a set of values and convictions; built on, to borrow a phrase, truths the leaders of that state consider to be self-evident. Every state has some sense of the convictions they will promote and privilege -- which naturally leads to punishing different beliefs. Every state has some sense of the behaviours they will commend and reward -- and of how they will condemn and restrict contrasting behaviours.
It is not logically possible to say opposition to same-sex marriage is theocratic while endorsing it is not. Both positions come out of deep convictions about the nature of reality and the purpose of human existence -- and those convictions are not simply the result of neutral scientific research.
It would be more honest for opponents of Proposition 8 to say something like "This is our national orthodoxy. We think it's a better, more life affirming orthodoxy than yours, and we wish you could embrace it and get with the program. But even if you don't, these are still the values of our society. If you don't embrace them voluntarily, we are prepared to ensure you respect them in your public conduct."
This is really not a contest between inclusive openness and narrow theocracy. The real question is which orthodoxy is the best way to build a society: historic Christianity, progressive Humanism, or something else. The experience of the church through history and around the world has given the church great resources to hold our own in that discussion.
But western society can't engage that question as long as Progressives keep insisting "we're not promoting belief; we're promoting openness to all beliefs." As this court case has shown, they really are not open to all beliefs.
If I want to say more, I probably ought to start my own blog… hope this comment isn't too long…
Anonymous,
Those are some very good thoughts.
My only disagreement would be in calling the progressive worldview orthodoxy. There has already been too much name stealing lately. I think they should find their own word: )
Two other thoughts, you should get a blog-it would be interesting. And the other is please sign your name next time.
Interesting read. Although it is strange to hear that I have overcome diversity. I wasn’t aware that diversity was something that needed to be overcome. Perhaps you meant adversity, but I can’t really think of what adversity I have overcome, either. All in all, I have led a pretty charmed existence. But that is neither here nor there. But a few comments . . .
First, I was really surprised to see a Nazi analogy in your response, particularly considering the topic of conversation. You do know why the LGBT movement uses pink triangles for their emblem, right? However, I think your point is that you believe in democratic forms of government since human beings are imperfect and, therefore, you would not trust an authoritarian government. What I find interesting about this response is that that has often been the justification for authoritarian governments—because of the imperfection of the populace, society needs a strong-man to enforce order. In fact, your logic is often the logic that underlies justifications for genocide and politicide: society has too many “immoral” people and so therefore we cannot reach our potential, thus the only way we can succeed is if we eliminate “immoral” people. Your second point is that democracies can fail, and that is true. There is a lot of empirical research on why democracies, particularly young ones (which the Weimer Republic was and the United States is not) fail. The largest predictors, of course, are economic failure and weak branches of government, thus one branch (generally the legislative and the judicial) becomes co-opted by another (generally the executive). I have never seen any credible study that has shown even a slight correlation with “immorality” and democratic failure. I’m not really sure how one would even measure that. There are very few examples of long established democracies experiencing a total reversal to totalitarian government. Perhaps Chile during Pinochet? Personally, I believe constitutional democracy is the best form of government because it is the most able to broadly address the interests of a diverse society.
Continued from above
Second, is the issue of marriage rights. You argue that morality has served the United States well and use a number of examples of successful social movements. What all those social movements have in common is that they are fighting for laws that protect the rights of those groups. I’m on the same page with you here, I was hoping that you had your own personal road to Damascus moment and was able to see the connection between the pro-marriage movement and these other social movements. And then you create a counterfactual of a society where everyone became pro-slavery or murderers. But then you ask, what if society became “obsessed with all forms of sexuality including deviant forms or else they simply don’t care about sexual morality one way or the other.” (Are you equating people having sexual relations with slavery and murder?) This is where I get confused. It seems like your arguments are more about sex than marriage. If that is the case then we are having two separate conversations. A sexual relationship between two consenting adults, particularly two adults that love and care for each other, is not deviant. But that is not what the pro-marriage movement is all about (although I am pretty convinced that the anti-marriage position is less about “protecting traditional marriage” and more about punishing people they believe are undesirable.)
So why am I, a straight male Christian, pro-marriage? (I’m sure you understand my distinction between being pro-marriage (me) and anti-marriage (you) by now.) People can live healthier lives if they can be open about who they love. Could you imagine if you and Uncle Brad could never be open about the love you have for each other? I’m sure as a grandmother, if one of your grandchildren was gay or lesbian you would rather them live in a society where they would be accepted and not shunned. You would also want them to have all the same legal protections of your other grandchildren. I certainly want that for all of my nieces and nephews and any future children I might have. One of the great joys I have had living in so many gay-friendly communities is that you are able to see how wonderful my friends lives are when they know they can be who they are without fearing what might happen if someone found out. And most of them have stories of having to leave those communities that hated them. The night Prop 8 passed was so terrible as I had to watch my recently married friends sob as they wondered if their marriage was going to be taken away. Can you imagine doing such a thing to someone? Could you imagine hating someone so much that you would take away the legal protections they have with their marriage. It is something a Christian would never do. But it really comes back to my central point. As a Christian I have to make daily choices about how I relate with my fellow human beings. For me that is not complicated, “As I have loved you, love one another.” It is my duty as a Christian to be compassionate and to help others live happier, healthier lives. If I am wrong I am willing to accept the consequences, because I have been able to live a joyous life by following this simple principle, and for me that is enough. But I would never want to stand before God and try to justify why I actively worked to ruin people’s lives in His name. That, in my mind, is a damnable offense.
(Please note to readers of this blog: Viola’s family and my family have argued about religion since long before I was born. The joke was always that me and the cousins always got to play together longer when they started talking about religion. Eventually Aunt Viola would tell us that we were all going to hell, we would way our goodbyes and it would all happen again on the next visit. So when I tell Aunt Viola that she is going to hell it is all good-natured and part of a long family tradition. Of course, I always promise to put in a good word for her, but she doesn’t seem to be willing to make the same promise to me.)
Oops, seems like some double posting. I'll let you delete the extras.
David,
First things first. I don't need someone to put a good word in for me. I already have someone who is my advocate, that is, Jesus Christ. And as I said on Facebook it is only his righteousness that counts for anything.
But then I know you were just kidding.
Just one more piece of personal information that you may not know about. There was a time when your mom and dad and we agreed to discuss our religion using only the Bible. But finally your mom and dad said we needed to pray and ask God to reveal to us that the Book of Mormon was true. Of course as Christians we couldn't do that. That may have been when the discussions stopped for awhile, I can't remember.
So on to the real subject.
Yes, I do know why the LGBT movement uses the pink triangles. That was a horrific time for homosexuals as it was for many. That is why I said what I said at the end of my posting.
And perhaps I was trying to make my thoughts too concise. I did use Nazi Germany because it was a modern democracy that failed, but it did fail for many reasons-and many were not economic. I know you are the expert on these things but that time in Germany is something I have been reading about, researching, and studying for many years.
Hitler was voted in for many reasons. But they were all linked in one way or another to moral issues. (of course weak branches of government was another reason) But the truth is the people did vote Hitler in to the office of Chancellor. He vowed to destroy democracy and the people voted him in.
Without democracy sinners can become dictators. But in a democracy such as ours there are checks and balances. But if most of the people want the same thing or really don’t care then democracy can turn on its self. Most Germans didn’t want democracy, they wanted their glory back.
But it seems to me that you are trying to tell me that I should want an authoritarian government because I believe all persons are sinners. It seems to me that if I give my reason for why I prefer something and you try to tell me I should have a different reason for preferring it, you are being a bit authoritarian yourself: )
It might surprise you to learn that the government of the United States and Presbyterian government have some similar features, and most reformed Christians, which include Presbyterians, believe all people are sinners in need of grace.
I would equate some sexual deviancy with slavery and murder. That is sex with children and animals and also rape.
you might be confused with what I said because you don’t count homosexual sex as sin. But the Bible does, and it also equates marriage with a man and a woman. So as a Christian I have to say that I don’t count any rite that legally puts same gender together as marriage. That is making a mockery out of marriage. And no I don’t want laws that will help my children to be disobedient to the word of God or their Lord. I will always love them no matter what. And I will help them in any way I can. But I do not want laws that encourage their unfaithfulness.
Marriage laws do not have to be changed in order for gays and lesbians to not be shunned.
I just discovered your double posting wasn't your fault-something is wrong with blogger tonight.
Hi Viola: I'm the first anonymous visitor… your feedjit traffic feed calls me a visitor from Ottawa. My name is Paul, and I'm from rural Ontario, not really Ottawa. And yes, we've had same-sex marriage imposed by bureaucratic fiat for several years now, which informs my perspective on your recent court decision.
Regarding using the term orthodox to describe the Judge's position, I can appreciate your confusion. Maybe you can help me work on a better word. The thing I'm trying to describe is that every society has a sense of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It's as if cultures have an instinct to defend and promote certain beliefs, which then leads them to discourage and persecute alternative beliefs. For instance, Christians who confessed Christ as the singular Lord of lords were heretics both to the Synagogue establishment and to the Roman civil religious order.
We still confess Christ as the singular Lord of lords. For us, that's fundamental orthodoxy. For others, it isn't. They have their own sense of what constitutes "right opinions," of ortho-doxy.
People like your nephew try to get away with saying things like "we don't think your confession is orthodox because we don't think anything is orthodox. We're not into orthodoxy, we're into including everyone." This is nonsense. Everyone believes at least some things are right opinions and others are wrong.
Paul from Ontario
Paul,
Perhaps orthodoxy is the only word that can be used. I know it means right belief but so many words have been changed and now marriage.
Let me know if you start a blog.
To claim that we might become a "theocracy" is jaw-droppingly vacuuous at best (I use that term to describe cranial content). Even in the Old Days - of the Founding Fathers - when we were 98% Christian - we were never even close to becoming a theocracy. That's in good measure due to those same Christian Founding Fathers who wisely stipulated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...". They backed it up with local laws prohibiting a religious test for any government office.
As far as same-sex "marriage" goes, the claim is that it somehow abridges their rights.
Everyone has exactly the same right: to marry anyone of the opposite sex who'll put up with them. End of argument.
Viola: "My only disagreement would be in calling the progressive worldview orthodoxy."
Me, too. But my stand is based on the meaning of "orthodoxy". I will never accept the Progresso-liberal viewpoint as orthodox.
Anonymous II (=Anon I??): I think you're reading more into our gracious host's post than she put there. (That's the way postmodernist critics work.)
Let me jump right away to the end of your comment:
"Personally, I believe constitutional democracy is the best form of government because it is the most able to broadly address the interests of a diverse society."
We're a constitutional republic. I think Formerly Great Britain is a constitutional democracy. (The contrast is delightful: they have no written constitution and an official state religion; we have a written Constitution and no state religion. At the moment, we seem to be doing a bit better than they; the reasons for that - on their side - are complex and dismal.)
In any event, a pure democracy would be disastrous. It worked well in Athens, because the population was small (on the order of 20,000), and everybody was involved in government affairs (recall that Socrates' jury numbered about 100)). Democracy, like most other philosophies, doesn't scale up very well. (Consider a country of some 300 million. Any country. 149 million vote for A, 151 million for B. Too bad for the 149 million.)
Democracy depends on an informed and active electorate. We have neither.
It is far too easy - now more than ever (as we've seen) - for the People to be swayed by a charming orator (as were Germans and Italians in the '40s). Pure Democracy gave us the Long dynasty in Louisiana and the Daley Dynasty in Chicago.
The Progresso-Liberal party wants to increase the size of Federal government. They want there to be more Federal workers. If I were a Federal worker, looking forward to a guaranteed pension of close to my final salary, I would be hard-pressed to vote that party out of power.
"So why am I, a straight male Christian, pro-marriage?"
To be pro-marriage is to be for the idea of marriage as it has been in human society for the last 10,000 years (and possibly before that).
Even the variants - such as polygamy, and harems - were not there so that the wives could cuddle.
If you look closely at ancient Greek culture - where it is supposed that homosexuality was rampant (and therefore somehow acceptable, based on that example) - you'll find that it was strictly what we call pederasty today. Men caught in our version of homosexuality were ridiculed, or banished.
Mike Zorn
Santa Ana CA
To claim that we might become a "theocracy" is jaw-droppingly vacuuous at best (I use that term to describe cranial content). Even in the Old Days - of the Founding Fathers - when we were 98% Christian - we were never even close to becoming a theocracy. That's in good measure due to those same Christian Founding Fathers who wisely stipulated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...". They backed it up with local laws prohibiting a religious test for any government office.
As far as same-sex "marriage" goes, the claim is that it somehow abridges their rights.
Everyone has exactly the same right: to marry anyone of the opposite sex who'll put up with them. End of argument.
Viola: "My only disagreement would be in calling the progressive worldview orthodoxy."
Me, too. But my stand is based on the meaning of "orthodoxy". I will never accept the Progresso-liberal viewpoint as orthodox.
Anonymous II (=Anon I??): I think you're reading more into our gracious host's post than she put there. (That's the way postmodernist critics work.)
Let me jump right away to the end of your comment:
"Personally, I believe constitutional democracy is the best form of government because it is the most able to broadly address the interests of a diverse society."
We're a constitutional republic. I think Formerly Great Britain is a constitutional democracy. (The contrast is delightful: they have no written constitution and an official state religion; we have a written Constitution and no state religion. At the moment, we seem to be doing a bit better than they; the reasons for that - on their side - are complex and dismal.)
Mike Zorn
Santa Ana CA
(Part 2 - I ran up against the length restriction)
In any event, a pure democracy would be disastrous. It worked well in Athens, because the population was small (on the order of 20,000), and everybody was involved in government affairs (recall that Socrates' jury numbered about 100)). Democracy, like most other philosophies, doesn't scale up very well. (Consider a country of some 300 million. Any country. 149 million vote for A, 151 million for B. Too bad for the 149 million.)
Democracy depends on an informed and active electorate. We have neither.
It is far too easy - now more than ever (as we've seen) - for the People to be swayed by a charming orator (as were Germans and Italians in the '40s). Pure Democracy gave us the Long dynasty in Louisiana and the Daley Dynasty in Chicago.
The Progresso-Liberal party wants to increase the size of Federal government. They want there to be more Federal workers. If I were a Federal worker, looking forward to a guaranteed pension of close to my final salary, I would be hard-pressed to vote that party out of power.
"So why am I, a straight male Christian, pro-marriage?"
To be pro-marriage is to be for the idea of marriage as it has been in human society for the last 10,000 years (and possibly before that).
Even the variants - such as polygamy, and harems - were not there so that the wives could cuddle.
If you look closely at ancient Greek culture - where it is supposed that homosexuality was rampant (and therefore somehow acceptable, based on that example) - you'll find that it was strictly what we call pederasty today. Men caught in our version of homosexuality were ridiculed, or banished.
Mike Zorn
Santa Ana CA
Viola: I have no idea what's going on. The first time I tried to post the whole comment, it said "URL too long", so I assumed it didn't go through.
(That may explain other duplicated posts.)
My apologies.
Mike Zorn
Yeah,
Blogger most not be happy with this particular posting it keeps doing that. I will fix it.
And I like all of your ideas Mike.
Post a Comment