Last week in California, a news article reported that state legislation was passed to enable “students in California schools to compete on sports teams and use facilities, including restrooms, based on their gender identity, regardless of whether they are listed as male or female in official campus records.”
This basically means that if a boy believes he is a girl, despite his physical and genetic biology being male, he will be allowed to play basketball on the girls varsity team and then shower with them in the locker room after the game.
As fictitious as this sounds, Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor, said, “All students should have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in school.” Huh?!?
From my understanding, I want to clearly distinguish between (i) an intersex person who is born with multiple reproductive organs and physical evidences that do not give a clear indication of gender, and (ii) a person who is clearly born with the physical evidences of a specific gender yet later choose of their own accord to live as the opposite gender. I believe that the first situation is one that needs much compassion and understanding on the Christian’s our part.
This article, however, is focused on the second situation concerning what I believe is a transgender person.
One of the clearest distinctions in the natural world is gender. Male and female. These two words need no introduction, explanation, or definition. These two words cross language and cultural boundaries. For the Christian, it is through both male and female that God proclaimed the world be populated—twice (Gen 1:22, 9:7).
Maybe I should I say that this view or understanding was the case in a pre-postmodern world. How things are changing in a relative world…
A transgender person is one who identifies with a gender other than the one derived from their biological sex. While I understand there are potentially metaphysical factors at play, allow me to examine the simple logic of sex identification from a physical perspective.
Premise A – All people exclusively with male reproductive organs are male.
Premise B – I am a person exclusively with male reproductive organs.
Conclusion – Therefore, I am a male.
It is simple right? Gender is “the category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex.” A person of the male sex would then be masculine in gender. Using the same logic, we can determine with certainty our ethnicity, or skin, eye, and hair color.
How would we respond to a Jewish person if they declared they were not ethnically Jewish even though they were? What about an African (non-albino) who said they had white skin even though it was clearly black? We would dismiss it as nonsense because it clearly is. Why then do we entertain the idea of a biological male claiming to be a female in the case of a transgender person?
I suggest that it is because it is an issue of sexuality, and in our hyper politically sensitive world, sexuality is one of most emotive topics. It is portrayed as a personal right on the same level as life and liberty. We are taught from a young age not to call into question anything that revolves around the personal sexuality of another. Neither are we to be disciplined in our own sexual behavior.
This is why the topics of same-sex marriage and homosexuality are so explosive. I also believe that this is why abortion is so aggressively defended by the pro-choice side. It is ultimately about their right to have sex without consequences.
The transgender debate has already claimed its position within the highly charged category of personal sexuality. My fear is that the effects will be different from what we have seen with the other sexually orientated subjects noted above. Previously, the impact on our children in school has been through a propagation of materials. As challenging as that has been on the personal rights of those who do not agree with it, I fear the implementation of the transgender policies in schools will be much more difficult to deal with at home.
I have two boys and a girl. If my boys have to share a locker room in high school with females, it will not be healthy or acceptable. Whether the girl thinks she is a boy or not will make no difference to the hormonal reaction of my boys due to direct exposure. Let a half naked girl loose in a high school boys locker room and see what happens! The boys will go nuts!
And since we live in a relativistic world with no restraint, why should they show restraint? It becomes a violation of the rights of the boys along with the parents trying to guide them through the minefield of adolescent life. It is taking away the innocence of the boys and exposing them to visual images that should be reserved for marriage. This will surely have a greater effect on the boys than what we would call soft porn.
And while this is being done in the name of protecting the rights of the transgender student, it is a violation of the rights of almost every other student exposed to the situation along with their parents.
It is wrong to call into question the definition of male and female—a distinction that was ordained by God. Just because someone has the free will and ability to do whatever they want does not mean that they should abuse that privilege.
It is my hope that we can dialogue about this in a logical and sincere manner so that we can find a solution together.
Cross Posted on “When Worldviews Collide”.
Part of the problem is that this term of “transgender” has made its way into the culture and pushed on us whether we like it or not. Aside from the very rare exception of intersexed persons as you mentioned, there is no such thing as a transgender person. There are males and there are females. That’s it. But try to tell that to those who believe in these ideas and they will explode in rage.
“It is my hope that we can dialogue about this in a logical and sincere manner so that we can find a solution together.”
There is no logical/sincere manner to discuss this issue. The very fact that someone dares to question this gets them labeled a bigot and a “hater” and other words I cannot print here. How do I know? Because I’ve had it done to me over and over again.
It doesn’t matter how kind, how reasonable, how rational you try to be. People who think they are the opposite gender or who approve of this stuff will not allow any disagreement. The anger they display is horrifying to watch.
They are now pushing the idea that this is biologically determined from birth, just like they did with the homosexual issue.
I don’t see any solution here. I truly don’t. The pro-transgender side is even more radical than the pro-homosexual side.
The truly horrifying thing is that children are now being raised to believe this lie – and from toddler age.
I can feel your frustration Mo86 and agree that it is very difficult to know what to do. I just hope to maintain a Christi-like attitude in the dialogue, challenging people in their sin but not becoming bitter or resentful toward them. Now that science has become an idol to many in the world, along with oneself, often these ‘biological truths’ go without question and are assumed hard and fast facts.
Continue to speak out has you have been, challenging the world to think through their embraced falsities, and pray that the Holy Spirit can break through using our reason and logic as tools.
Thanks for the kind response.
In France, there is also such a gender-bigotry. They want to teach in elementary school that genders are purely social constructs, that one can choose to be whatever one wants…
This is far easier for the government to take such actions rather than to combat the raging unemployment.
Lovely greetings from Germany.
Liebe Grüsse aus Deutschland.
Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
Lothars,
Thanks for your input, especially from Germany. I love the international flavour CAA brings. I spent my life across 3 continents but have yet to visit your country. One day!
So you think it is easier for a government to appeal to the emotions and psychological musings of it’s people rather than provide economic and structural support for them? You could be right. The irony is that the people who support this action form the government would be the first to preach separation of church and state. What they fail to recognise is that they are promoting the church and religion of SELF onto the state.
Blessings Lothars,
Kit
This post reveals a very deep yet common confusion between identity and sexuality. The bottom line is that those who insist that gender (and gender identity) must be a defining factor in legal rights and protections are empowering gender discrimination in the name of morality.
It is difficult to understand and appreciate why this discriminatory empowerment is morally regressive in that its legal effect causes unnecessary but very real harm to real people in real life in the name of morality. Like the problem of involving morality over medicine to empower the law regarding abortion, so too is the problem of involving morality over gender identity to empower legal discrimination misplaced. I know it is hard to see why the real world effects of discriminatory practices undermines the moral claims made in its favour… until one ‘walks a mile in the shoes’ of people who have to live with this discrimination. Alleviating the unfounded fears of the pious regarding sexuality by discriminating against real people in real life is neither a solution to this problem nor a way to understand why it matter. The inclusion of morality of the pious to be of consideration to reducing the rights and protections of some is a guaranteed way of causing real harm. My hope is that someday the pious will accept that private moral beliefs belong solely to the holder of them and that piousness is never a respectable license to advocate that they be imposed on others by an abuse of secular law.
tildeb,
Thanks for your comments. Although my motivation is not piety (I will explain later), some of your comments could seen as pious tendencies in defending the exclusion of morality in life. You are rather intolerant to my view on this matter do you not agree? Before I go on, I really feel it would be helpful to try and understand you and your perspective. May I ask a few questions?
Do you believe there is a link between our identity and sexuality? Why?
How would you define morality?
Why do you think morality has no place in the public square?
How would you define moral progression?
Do you believe in ANY form of discrimination? Why? Against my thoughts maybe?
Do you believe it is possible to have a world with absolute tolerance between ALL people? How?
For a person who preaches anti-discrimination in many categories, you are rather discriminatory towards me and my views. Why is that?
Do you believe the only truthful answers in life are provided through the physical sciences?
What worldview do you believe is the optimal for life?
Lets talk about “walking in one’s shoes.” I believe you are Canadian based on our previous interaction. I am not sure how far and wide you have experienced life outside of that context. For myself, I have lived (more than 2 years at a time) in the following cultural contexts: western (influenced by Christianity although becoming post-Christian), buddhist, communist (influenced by atheism), animistic, and muslim. I have also spent a number of months living in a tribal setting (mostly animistic). I have lived as a minority and I am currently a minority in my community (of about 1/20,000). I have lived as part of a minority under numerous cultures and religions and I literally experience discrimination like you probably would not understand on a daily basis. What we have statistically experienced with regard to discrimination, and even more so our close local friends, is potentially more than most westerners will ever experience, including the minorities. I know what it is to walk in those shoes I can assure you. I would love to hear of your similar experiences you might have that have allowed you “to walk in one’s shoes.” Empathy is important so we can be compassionate. I do not believe that means everything is truthful and right though.
Based on my experiences, the worldview that is most gracious and free is the western although this is changing quickly as the post-Christian era sets in. This not because the west is a Christian state but because of the worldview that promotes love and respect to all people (love God and love your neighbor). This does not mean it regards everything as true and right. There are still things that are wrong. An example would be that you can live freely as a homosexual in a community without being arrested, stoned, or hanged BUT you cannot force a church pastor to marry you. You can be a pedophile and not be put in jail UNLESS you start messing with kids. Another could be that you have the freedom to legally live as a transgender in the community without fear of legal consequences BUT you cannot force 99% of students in a school to compromise their values by forcing yours onto them. Oops! Ok, that was an example in the past.
If you try this in another other cultural, you are not free to live that way and will be arrested or put to death simply for the identity you carry. This is not the case under a biblical worldview. You might think the atheistic world view is the answer but you only need to see the working out of the atheistic philosophy in Russia, China and other communists countries to see this is not true. I know because I have lived there. And before you claim violence in the name of Christianity as a red-herring, none of that conforms to biblical teaching in the way that violence under communism fits within atheistic philosophy.
It is not piety I am speaking from, trying to push a personal agenda. It is from experience living under different cultures and religions that have allowed me to come to this point. There is no such thing as a world without intolerance or discrimination. It is impossible by definition. We are a human race given free will and we need function within that. The natural law gives us a framework for ALL people from which to build a society. It is when we walk away from this that we get all messed up. This is not piety but the reality of studying cultures and history.
While I appreciate your comments, they are usually arguing in the negative against what I have written. I have asked the questions so I can see your positive arguments to back up your ideologies. I am trying to figure out where this nirvana or utopia you perceive is coming from.
I look forward to your reply to help me better understand your position.
Kit
P.S. – your comment about medicine empowering abortion rather than morality is interesting. Only in very few cases is abortion carried out due to real medical reasons. Most of the time abortion is carried out because of the ’emotional state’ of the mother. It is a highly subjective assessment and widely abused to the advantage of the mother. This is not to minimise the psychological area of medicine because it is critical. It is just abused mostly in this instance for personal gain.
Kit, like you I have lived on three continents and have experienced all kinds of stuff. What you understand to be intolerance of your position is really an argument against extending your sense of what’s right and wrong into the public domain to impose on everyone by use of secular law. I’m pointing out that your moral sense is your own and I’m quite tolerant of you holding them and applying to you. That’s not the issue. The issue is extending them beyond yourself not by dent of convincing others that your moral precepts are worthwhile and of greater value to hold than others (which may very well be the case) but by using law to do so. The law – a public institution, let us not forget, and responsible to the public to represent a common basis of rules and protections for all citizens – has no business enforcing one set of moral precepts that undermines this common basis in the name of your preferred morality. That’s why law comes with the name ‘common’; it is applicable to all because its role is to act for all. By this I mean its job is to work for all for the benefit of all, and this means its focus is on common rights and common protections for all. Your morality does not fit this definition and so using law to impose your morality over the behaviour of others is an abuse of the pubic institution.
Because we have lived in different places, we have seen firsthand what this abuse causes in the lives of real people and this is why we know the system of law that is based on the rights and protections of the common person allows the least harm to be done. When law is based on ensuring the autonomy of the individual then we enjoy the greatest freedoms and the greatest protections.; When law is used to impose top-down authority rather than individual autonomy we have seen its effect… usually in large scale abuse and real harm done to real people in the name of ‘protecting’ this authority. Your argument is asking law to do this same job, to impose rules in the name of some authority (morality in this case) rather than ensuring common rights and protection from it.
A quick anecdote: in the mill town of Nanaimo, BC, a local high school boy identified as a girl and wanted to use the girl’s bathroom and change rooms. Imagine the courage that would take when faced with a very masculine blue collar social environment. As you can easily imagine, the public response was almost completely negative, with thundering sermons and long letters to the editors of local papers condemning this depravity. Imagine the shock and surprise of these same people when most of the kids of the local high school demonstrated in support of the boy! This is Canada in a nutshell, seemingly filled with staid and conservative hard working people able to rise above their pettiness and biases and prejudices because they have to in order to prosper and socially function in a multicultural country where difference define us yet are also and paradoxically the root cause of deep strength and resilience to celebrate this common feature. In other words, its not the specific differences themselves that matter; what matters is that ALL of us are different, and this common identity is something we invest value into. Another example is a gay boy in first year high school in another town on the other coast of the continent bullied by a few kids for wearing a pink shirt on the first day of school. The response was for several well respected senior students to buy up all the pink t-shirts they could find in town and meet that kid on Day Two with a student body in a sea of pink to show the few bullies that they were not representative of the common as well as show clear social support for a bullied kid to feel welcome not because he was different from the majority in his sexual identity but because he was different and that was okay.
Note that in both cases the younger people lead this response not because they respect someone else’s proclaimed moral authority but because they respect the shared value of individual autonomy more. Is this the kind of place we would want to live and raise a family or would we prefer to live under the authority of others who think social cohesion can be imposed from above making victims along the way of those who are considered different?
I happen to think that principle is more important than practice. By this I mean that I hold your autonomy to believe what you wish and act in your personal life on these beliefs to be more important than what you believe and what you practice confined by your personal life. I expect the same in return. When someone advocates for the public law to help them extend their personal beliefs into the public domain, into public institutions and public governance and public education and public policies in the name of morality, then I stand firmly against this on principle because I grasp that I am in the wrong to do the same to others because such advocacy works contrary to respecting individual autonomy. I may not agree with your beliefs or how you rule your life; I may not agree with the morality you use to justify these personal choices and personal actions that affect your person, and I may disagree with yoru choices in identity and bedroom activities, but I respect OUR shared right, our common right, to be able to do so without interference from others. This is the principle under attack in the name of some other authority by those who see private choices and private acts as legitimate targets for a public response. And the right response is to be like those kids and step up and face the challenge of illegitimate authority.
tildeb,
I find it curious that you are so adamant about my imposing ‘my ideas’ into the public domain when you certain do not have a problem imposing your belief system and structure onto me, in the public domain. Do you not see the irony in this?
I agree with what you say about the common law and legislation being for the “common rights and common protections for” the community. I did not say ALL as you did because law will always infringe on some person’s personal rights or preferences. Polygamy, beastiality, private drug use and even fireworks in my home town are all legislated against in both the public and private. What about the privacy rights imposed upon in the name of public and national security? Your idea that we can do what ever we want in private and it will not impact the wider community is naive. I agree that the State should not have controlling rights over the private citizens and that is what the 1st amendment is for in the US, to protect the people against a government that tries to do that. It does not mean though that there will never be a legislation that imposes on someone’s right to do something in private. Of course there will be. What about the pedophile or murderer? You might say they are wrong but on what authority? So what if another persons rights are infringed upon when they exercise their own desires? You don’t seem to have a problem with that in this legislation on transgender in California.
You said that, “when law is based on ensuring the autonomy of the individual then we enjoy the greatest freedoms and the greatest protections.” I agree in general but there are exceptions. You assume you do not believe so and argue this should be the case in EVERY situation no matter the cost. Do you believe that if my daughter has a boy (in the traditional and historical sense of the word) in her class and wishes to share the bathroom with her, that my family is experiencing our greatest freedoms and protections? Of course the answer is no! You seem to think that there is some possible world where EVERY person agrees on a set of moral principles that are legislated as common law, and not one of them has any personal right infringed upon. That is fantasy my friend. Do you really believe there is one man-made or evolutionary set of morals that could be agreed upon that would cause a society to flourish in moral purity? Maybe Canada will be the first empire in history to achieve this. I am curious as to what belief system, worldview or philosophy you would call this. Can you please tell me?
I am not calling for a communist regime, a dictatorship or whatever authoritarian government you might be thinking of. I live daily in the midst of diversity and I am committed to bringing unity through the diversity because I know that is where the greatest strengths can be found. I completely agree on personal respect of every living being on this planet and that is why I have given up so much to help them right where they are at. I want to see their kids stop dying from simple sickness, not because of their belief system but because I love them for who they are, no strings attached. You are preaching to the converted when it comes to unity in diversity and personal respect.
This does not mean that I help support and give avenue for someone living in a destructive lifestyle (personally and corporately). If so, why not give drugs to the addict; why not give another beer to the alcoholic; why not give the gambling addict another $10 to throw on #4 in Race 5; why not give the villager another glass of river water full of human waste? Surely, if you see a fellow human being living a destructive life, you try to intervene and help them as a friend. Or would you sit back and say you were defending their rights to kill themselves? Like you, I respect your belief to believe whatever you want in private. There is no argument there. The argument is what happens when we get to the public square. You obviously believe at this point that your philosophy is right and mine should stay at home. Is this because you perceive that my understanding of the natural law is based on religion (even though it is not) and your view is not?
I think where we disagree is with whose morality is defined and legislated. Don’t tell me your view is not morality because it is. I do not wish to take away every possibility for people to do dumb things and make mistakes. I do not want to control people’s personal and private lives for the sake of it. You accuse me of pushing my own personal morality for legislation yet you are doing the same, pushing your own personal view of morality. My view is not a personal view though but from a natural moral law that is evident through the history and cultures of mankind. It is written on the hearts and minds of men, though often at times corrupted through self-idol worship.
You are insisting here on legislating your own personal morality based on a humanistic philosophy, you just give it another name. You claim my view on morality illegitimate yet your view completely acceptable for legislation. You are arguing a “universal moral principle” without a source. I think our ideas have some commonalities although the differences are stark when it comes to the crunch. Those differences being that I believe there is a moral law-giver who gave us all mankind a benchmark by which to live. While this natural law is administered under free-will, it does not give us an open license to do what we want without consequences. It can be discovered as men, religious or not, together seek after it with reason, logic and an open mind. I think you can think of a few laws yourself they might come up with. That is because we have the same maker and designer.
Kit, you’ve made a fundamental error confusing legal autonomy with moral autonomy. You are not legally entitled to impose your morality on me any more than I am entitled to impose my morality on you. This error leads you to confuse my support for legal autonomy (for both of us) to be a moral ‘belief system’ (when it isn’t). You then equate the two supposed ‘belief systems’ – yours and ‘mine’ – to be equivalent. This is a category mistake, which you then use to justify imposing your personal moral beliefs on others through the legal system to reduce my legal autonomy in the name of your (hoped for) legal morality and then claim victimhood should your imposition be denied!
What you fail to appreciate is that by supporting your own moral imposition on others by legal means, you are reducing your own legal autonomy because the same can be done to you and your autonomy for exactly the same reasons you support, and this is foolishness writ large. You just don’t see it in your haze of piety… arguing as you do from a position of what you assume is a moral authority derived from your faith-based belief in this starting assumption. And this is exactly the same line of argumentation used by supporters of sharia law, and that for anyone to deny its imposition on the public is an attack on the legal autonomy of the individuals who promote it. This is a clue you have missed about where your thinking has gone astray…
Tildeb,
You seem to think that what you would legislate does not stem from your belief system. You do not seem to understand the the natural law (or moral law) does not stem from religion and is not a case of legislating religion as the Taliban does. The natural law is what allows us to understand that it is wrong to kill others, steal from others, sleep with your mates wife, permit freedom of religion, and so on. To be clear, it is NOT the 10 commandments.
You still have not answered many of my questions to you including where does your authority to legislate your ideas come from?
How are you so sure they do not stem from your morals?
Every country legislates from their belief systems. Where else do they legislate from?
You fail to understand that I do not propose to legislate my personal morality but rather the discovered natural law that men can seek together. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough on that matter. It is not about reducing my “own legal autonomy”. It is not my word versus yours. The natural law is evident in man and is discovered, not fabricated. I am still not sure where your philosophy on legislation is derived or what gives it authority other than yourself.
I am not arguing from piety. I could just as easily accuse you of arguing with piety from your atheists/humanist position. Faith is faith, whether it is in God or yourself.
I would appreciate any answers to the numerous questions I have asked previously, particularly on those examples that reduce my freedoms as you so passionately wish to preserve.
Legislation (in a secular democracy) does NOT stem from anyone’s belief system! It stems from assigned legal rights laid out (usually) in various kinds of constitutions (this is why defense forces swear to protect the Constitution – or the institution from which its authority derives, like a monarchy – and not the ruling party or a leader). These rights are not open to debate but laid out plainly to state the justification for an exchange of authority from the individual to a government to make laws in the individual’s name. Please note, this is a bottom up system for political authority, meaning that a government legislates law only by consent to do so from the governed, from the public. And this is why you will find no reference to any other authority in the US or French Constitutions because government gains legitimate authority to make laws from the individuals who constitute the citizenship. All individuals (of majority) share identical rights.
This same idea applies to constitutional monarchies where the king of queen is not allowed to affect the rights of citizens to which they have granted full legal autonomy but work as a branch of government to maintain the final resting place of these rights in trust (should the need ever arise, which is why all legislation still requires royal assent – in the name of the public).
Without these rights (or if the rights are suspended by legislation), the individual loses autonomous authority, which means the government loses legitimacy (which is why any legislation that alters rights must be a temporary measure with a clear timeline to an end point).
What’s important to understand in the context of our discussion is that rights themselves are not subject to beliefs about them. Every citizen of majority shares identical rights in law. This is not the case with morality. The law is the wrong tool to try to establish a moral standard, which is why laws involving morality never work because they do not have the consent the governed! Censorship and prohibition laws try to enforce ‘community standards’ that are at best some vague moral notion that is, it turns out, unenforceable (not due to lack of trying or money spent in its enforcement support) because to impose it effectively reduces common legal rights that then reduces a justified government. But citizens tend to be fairly stupid when it comes to their rights and don;t mind replacing them with words like ‘security’ and ‘morality’. But the law recognizes this danger and will veto such legislation at the supreme level as being ‘unconstitutional’.
Sometimes it’s right to kill and sometimes it’s wrong. Secular law recognizes this reality and in its application to acts contrary to law considers the mitigating factor of intention. Arguments based on ‘natural law’ can be utilized both in support of and in conflict with any particular case. People who believe that acts are all of a kind are usually the ones who have never successfully figured out their own moral authority and so fail utterly to appreciate any means by which an act can be morally acceptable here but not there. This is a failure at being a responsible, autonomous citizen and a banner at being a tool of some other authority than the one that legitimizes and protects their legal rights.
Tildeb,
Of course legislation stems from our belief system. You still have not told me where your views on morality or legislation come from. Is it from your own personal belief system? If not, where? You would do well to answer this question with an explanation so we might better understand your view point. Without it, you are only propagating your personal opinion, which has no warranted validity over anyone else’s personal view.
You do mention that the laws stem from the constitution. What do you believe the men who formed the constitution used to guide them? The American constitution was formed by men who had a common understanding of theism (not Christian) and the fact that there is a common, natural law that is consistent with all mankind. It was on this basis that they formed the constitution of the US that then guides the laws made today. Actually, this is false for today because since the mid twentieth century, the US supreme court has started to reinterpret the US constitution and pass rulings based on their own personal beliefs and morals. It is becoming an issue and causing some issues. They are indirectly rewriting the constitution based on their own morality. This I do not agree with as I do not agree with a ‘moral’ rule under Sharia Law.
You seem to miss my point of the natural or moral law that is common to man and from which laws of the land should be formed. The natural law is the only standardised benchmark that is fair to all men. I am not talking about kings, dictators or military rulers imposing their personal morals on their people. I am not talking about a President imposing his own personal understanding of what is write and wrong (we can see that is currently not working well in the US). I am talking about a definition or what is right and wrong that mankind holds a common understanding to. That is what constitutions are built on. Together we discover it. One man does not create it. You seem to be having trouble grasping that this is not my concoction but something that the people, the citizens of this world, naturally adhere to when given the freedom to do so.
Here is an article you will probably agree with but it helps to highlight my argument further.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/19/you_can_not_legislate_morality/page/full
Rights and values are ALL based on your worldview and belief system. If not, where do they originate from? What is their philosophical origin? You need to answer this question to hold any credibility to your argument. What we must not do, as I think you would agree, is not to legislate the moral interpretation of the far left or right. This is not the natural law. Natural law is NOT linked to religion but to the metaphysical make up of all men. That is why it takes a group to discover it. I am repeating myself because I am afraid I am not making myself clear. It seems simple but we seem to be going around in circles because you continue to accuse me of pushing my own personal opinion of morality on legislation. I am not because, as you say, that is wrong. The irony is that unless you can give an origin to your view on legislation and morality that is not from an individual such as yourself, you are making the error you are inaccurately accusing me of.
Tildeb,
Of course legislation stems from our belief system. You still have not told me where your views on morality or legislation come from. Is it from your own personal belief system? If not, where? You would do well to answer this question with an explanation so we might better understand your view point. Without it, you are only propagating your personal opinion, which has no warranted validity over anyone else’s personal view.
You do mention that the laws stem from the constitution. What do you believe the men who formed the constitution used to guide them? The American constitution was formed by men who had a common understanding of theism (not Christian) and the fact that there is a common, natural law that is consistent with all mankind. It was on this basis that they formed the constitution of the US that then guides the laws made today. Actually, this is false for today because since the mid twentieth century, the US supreme court has started to reinterpret the US constitution and pass rulings based on their own personal beliefs and morals. It is becoming an issue and causing some issues. They are indirectly rewriting the constitution based on their own morality. This I do not agree with as I do not agree with a ‘moral’ rule under Sharia Law.
You seem to miss my point of the natural or moral law that is common to man and from which laws of the land should be formed. The natural law is the only standardised benchmark that is fair to all men. I am not talking about kings, dictators or military rulers imposing their personal morals on their people. I am not talking about a President imposing his own personal understanding of what is write and wrong (we can see that is currently not working well in the US). I am talking about a definition or what is right and wrong that mankind holds a common understanding to. That is what constitutions are built on. Together we discover it. One man does not create it. You seem to be having trouble grasping that this is not my concoction but something that the people, the citizens of this world, naturally adhere to when given the freedom to do so.
Here is an article you will probably agree with but it helps to highlight my argument further.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/19/you_can_not_legislate_morality/page/full
Can you also confirm whether or not you believe legislation is discriminatory? You seem to communicate that you believe everyone has the right to do what they want so long as “the fist doesn’t hit the face”. Laws by definition are discriminatory otherwise they are not laws. Legislation is ONLY about regulating human behaviour and providing boundaries of what is acceptable in a society and what is not, what is right and what is wrong.
Rights and values are ALL based on your worldview and belief system. If not, where do they originate from? What is their philosophical origin? You need to answer this question to hold any credibility to your argument. What we must not do, as I think you would agree, is not to legislate the moral interpretation of the far left or right. This is not the natural law. Natural law is NOT linked to religion but to the metaphysical make up of all men. That is why it takes a group to discover it. I am repeating myself because I am afraid I am not making myself clear. It seems simple but we seem to be going around in circles because you continue to accuse me of pushing my own personal opinion of morality on legislation. I am not because, as you say, that is wrong. The irony is that unless you can give an origin to your view on legislation and morality that is not from an individual such as yourself, you are making the error you are inaccurately accusing me of.
One person’s slippery slope is another’s progressive step forward to enlightenment.
Their “solution” is for your (and my) worldview to be replaced.
I guess a step forward can be either up (true progression) or down (a slippery slope). Much of the ‘progression’ we see today is propagated by the religion of self worship and lustful desire.
Sounds like one of my favorite Lewis quotes:
“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” – C.S. Lewis
It seems what we essentially have today is squeaky-wheel, minority-based, rule-making. And since there is so little thought put into it, minorities tend to win, well, because they are minorities (postmodernism has taught us majorities are usually evil)… and if they make enough noise with semi-convincing sounding slogans, much of the majority just goes…. ‘duh, sounds like a good idea to me.’
Well, that and Romans 1. But, I think there has to be thinking in the first place before it can become futile. I haven’t experience much thinking at all when in discussion over this stuff with most people.
I agree Steve. I wonder if when Christians are one day a minority is we will be met with the same enthusiasm. I guess not.
I believe there is much that happens today within our culture at a deeper level (sometimes evident through current affairs) that people are generally unaware of. I think we need to be engaging with the community on these topics before things get too far out of hand, we usually happens. We need to be proactive rather than reactive on these issues.
I wonder what a big squeaky wheel looks like without those feel-good one-liners.
Definitely true that there is something deeper going on.
Suppose I’m a politician having an affair behind my wife’s back. (Hey…it could happen!) Am I more or LESS likely to defend the true definition of monogamous heterosexual marriage when asked to vote on SSM?
Isnt it true, – just like the obesity epidemic, where overweight folks look around at people who are morbidly obese and think, hey I’m normal, – that the slippery slope towards further sexual promiscuity permits people to feel they are the new normal?
…as long as there is someone “weirder” than me my conscience can breathe a sigh of relief.
“…Sure, I drink a LOT but at least I’m not as bad as that old guy at the end of the bar.”
“…Yeah, so I smoke a bit of weed. Where’s the harm? At least I’m not a drug pusher.”
“…OK so I had an affair once or twice. Whats so bad about that? Marriage isnt that big a deal these days. They even let gay people get married.”
“…why shouldnt I enjoy myself? Everybody else is doing much worse.”
That is exactly what happens when we remove the moral benchmark set by the designer from outside of our system and set our own moral benchmarks.
It is happening across many spheres now. Look at education where a masters of doctorate doesn’t hold any sway against an internet-educated ‘scholar’. Our knowledge benchmark is not set by the experts in that field but by each person.
Surely when each person takes a long hard look at this unfolding reality, the overriding philosophy if relativism and setting individual benchmarks, it must be disconcerting because at some point it MUST come back and bite us. Subjectivity in morality is ever changing and cannot be sustained.
The frog in a slowly warming pot of water is not going to take “a long hard look at this unfolding reality.”
Not until it is far to late. That is why I am trying to get the frogs attention, even for a moment, before it gets too hot. What the frogs decide to do with the information is up to them. Oh, the poor frogs!
Sorry if anyone took offence at the reference to politicians or obesity or gay marriage.
I wouldnt want to offend New Jersey government officials.