The left and libertarians are mostly in
agreement when it comes to the government's role in social issues.
They both take the stance that “I don't care what you do and that it
would be wrong for me to impose my values on people” or that “you
should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone
else” or that “the government should not get involved in social
issues”. This view is illustrated in the same-sex marriage,SSM,
debate. A common argument against people that don't want the
government to reconginze SSM and who want to uphold the definition of
marriage that has been in place for thousands of years --or any other
issue that involves “morality”-- is that they want to legislate
“morality” and impose their views on society. The left and
libertarians believe that it is not the the proper role of government
to impose morality on society. But this view fails to reconginze the
nature of the law which prevents them from being able to see that
they are guilty of “imposing morality” because any law—even the
ones they support-- by its very nature is “imposing morality”.
The issue is not whether morality should be imposed on society but
what morality should be imposed on society and to what extent. The left and libertarians
also fail to realize that civilization is itself a system that
imposes morality or societal norms and practices on people.
Selwyn Duke points the problem with the libertarian view on the law and morality:
In a piece I recently wrote about the dangers inherent in libertarianism, I pointed out that libertarians, by applying their live-and-let-live philosophy to the moral sphere as well as the governmental, do nothing to maintain the societal moral framework that enables people to govern themselves from within and that ensures Big Brother won’t have to do so from without (I recommend you read the piece).[...]
A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? [...]
So here is how you fall into the philosophical trap that has ensnared virtually all libertarians (and many others):
Step 1 — Believe in a mythical separation of morality and state.
Step 2 — Accept the laws you agree with and believe necessary, not realizing they’re an imposition of morality.
Step 3 — Turn around and oppose laws you disagree with, not on the basis that the values they reflect are wrong or are not the government’s domain, but simply because they’re an “imposition of morality.”
In truth, something doesn’t have to be proclaimed by a thunderous voice from the heavens, a bishop or Charlton Heston in a Cecil B. DeMille film to be christened “morality,” nor does something cease being so (or at least a conception thereof) because it has become the stuff of academia or wins a popular vote. A moral does not cease to be a moral because it becomes a meme.[...]
The story of man is one of spiritual, cultural, political and physical warfare, and each chapter has victory and vanquishment. Zoroastrianism was extinguished by Islam, the Ainus have largely been subsumed by the Japanese, and the Maldives’ native Giraavaru culture is now only a memory. Just like animals, countless languages, cultures, beliefs and peoples have become extinct, often the victims of invasive entities that, through superior morality or might, won that inevitable battle.
And that is the battle for civilization. It may sound very noble to say, “. . . believe what you want to believe — I'm ok with that. After all, I am a Libertarian,” but when enough people believe the wrong things, you will not be OK with it. You will be living under a regime that enshrines those things in law — you’ll be living in tyranny.
Like it or not, imposing values is what arranging civilization is all about. And like it or not, you’re part of this process. The only difference among any of us is in what and how much we impose — and in that some of us actually understand this is precisely what we’re doing.
So we can avoid talk about morality if we want, but it will do nothing to ensure that morality won’t be imposed on us. It only guarantees a descent into error that, ultimately, ensures that immorality will be.
In the same-sex marriage debate, people
that want to uphold marriage as defined for thousands of years are
attacked on the grounds that they are imposing their morality on
society as if those that are pushing for the government to recognize
SSM are not imposing their morality on society. Any law by its very
nature is imposing morality on society. So whether you are for or
against SSM you are imposing values on society. The question is whether you are imposing values that lead to the destruction of that
society or whether you are imposing values that have built and
sustained that society. The argument that it is wrong to support
“traditional” marriage because it would be imposing values is a
cleaver way to get those that support “traditional” marriage to
become defensive and to become blind to the fact that supporters of
SSM are imposing their values on society: it is a way on the part of
SSM supporters to disarm and distract their opponents. SSM
proponents are not only imposing their morality on society they are
attacking and forcing those that disagree with them to accept their morality: here , here, here, here , here, here, here, here , here and other places. “Evil
preaches tolerance until it is in power. Then it tries to silence
good.” This is no where more evident than in the issues of
homosexuality and SSM: they preach tolerance and that society must
accept their “lifestyle” and then they attack and silence those
that oppose them as evident from the links given above. Saying that
the government should not support traditional values is to surrender
our civilization to the forces that will destroy it.
The libertarian view on morality and
social issues is one of surrender:
Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization. This is because, in libertarians’ failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren’t shy about advancing their “values.” And proof of this is in the social pudding. You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven’t dispensed with such things — that is impossible. Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called “political correctness,” which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.
As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture. For if the culture is lost, of what good is politics? People will vote in accordance with their world view no matter what you do. Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.
The libertarian chant, “I don’t care what you do, just lemme alone” sounds very reasonable, indeed. But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don’t leave you alone. They tyrannize you. A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people. And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, “Virtue is not hereditary.”
For this reason, neither is liberty. Scream “Live and let live!” loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live — and the republic will die.
James Madison stated:"Religion is the basis and Foundation of government." Whether this religion is Christianity or the new secular religion of the state, government and laws can not refrain from imposing religion or morality on people. This does not mean that the government should become a theocracy but it does mean that the state has an important role to play in defending the norms and practices of an ordered and free society as F. A. Hayek states in “Law, Legislation and Liberty” as opposed to defending norms and practices that will destroy that society. At the very heart of the decline of our nation are
“moral” issues. If you want to make a stand for freedom and to
perserve our way of life you have to support and defend the norms,
practice, and institutions that has enabled our society to become the
most prosperous society in history : you don't have the option of
retreating to the realm of moral relativism where everything and
anything is okay and staying netural in this battle over the future
of our civilization. If you do stay netural, the other side will make
their stand by imposing their secular values on society and they will
force and corece you to support their morality and persecute you if
you don't all while making you belive that to impose your morality is
wrong and to accept theirs is just.
Good article. This is why I'm not a libertarian, though I sympathize with much they stand for. It's their lack of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe frontier is closed. There is noplace left to run for the man that wants to be left alone and do whatever he wants. There must be some rules and some government to allow men to survive and thrive together.
People do not realize what are the goals of the militant homosexual movement and the secular religion of the state are. They are persecuting people whose religious beliefs go against their choice of life or doctrine. This is somewhat similar to what happened in Nazi Germany when the Nazis came to power. The German churches were silent about how that the Nazis were forcing the churches to support the Nazi regime and co opting their religious beliefs. It is also similar to how the German people failed to stand up to the Nazis who were taking away their rights and burning Jewish synagogues. As a result of the German people having an apathetic attitude, no backbone, and not realizing what was happening in their country, millions of Germans were killed in the war, their country was literally destroyed, millions of their women were physically rapped, and their nation and people were overall utterly and totally degraded. We in America need to trow off this moral relativism that is acting like a poison that is turning our backbone to mush by preventing us from taking a stand and we need to wake up as to what is really going on and we need to take a stand against this evil. You can shrugged off what is happening now fairly easily but by the time this tyranny starts to directly and physically affect you it will be too late to do anything.
ReplyDeletehttp://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2013/04/american-arrested-for-anti-homosexual-statements.html
"As for Eurasia, its Ministry of Truth’s latest handiwork is the arrest and punishment of an American street preacher who dared speak of sin in that land once known as Scotland. The victim is 47-year-old New Yorker Shawn Holes, who was on a UK tour when he was arrested in Glasgow after running afoul of UK hate-speech laws."
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/08/judge-foreigners-can-sue-u-s-pastor-over-sermons/
"A federal judge has backed a homosexual-rights group in its claim that members were injured by an American pastor’s biblical preaching in Uganda against homosexual behavior."
"But the ruling from Judge Michael Posner in a case brought by Sexual Minorities Uganda against Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries could mean much more. It could establish that an international consensus disavowing long-held biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution."
"SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a “crime against humanity” in violation of “international law.”"[...]
"The judge argued that the idea that Lively’s statements are protected under the First Amendment was “premature.”"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I like Libertarians is that a libertarian government would solve every issue that we bring up on this blog. Literally.
ReplyDeleteI challenge a contributor to show me otherwise.
Libertarians, for the most part, believe that the government should solely be involved with protecting contractual rights, prevention of aggression, and theft of property. Government entities would be military, law enforcement, and the courts.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to suggest that Libertarians say they don't want to impose morality on some things but they do on others. This is true, but a pointless argument because the morality that they support is agreed upon by the entire population with only insignificant outliers.
Your solutions to political problems have no end game and will not solve anything. While I agree with the Christian morality, it is unenforceable. Enforcing a Christian morality will only lead to angst with a population that has so many freedoms because the vast majority of humans are sinners and will follow Satan if they are given the opportunity. However, Christian morality could be enforced with a totalitarian state. And if you look at history, Christianity has only been enforced through such a government. A libertarian government will let sinners go to their ultimate fate more swiftly. That fate is death.
SSM would be solved with a Libertarian government because no one would care about government recognition of marriage. The only recognition needed would be that of the church (which is what its all about anyway).
You want to say Libertarians have double standards? Why do you think the government should give preferential tax treatment only to the groups that you see fit? Don't you see that this is opening a never ending can of worms?
Give me liberty or give me death.
Liberty:
1. Freedom from government control
2. Freedom from external rule; independence
3. Freedom from control
Which sort of liberty do you espouse? Liberty was the founding motto of the the founding fathers that you tout so highly about. Why should our government support only your religion? Let the others pray to their gods, our God will take care of us.
You can't champion liberty as long as it's only your type of liberty.
ReplyDeleteI think that if you were to completely read those 3 article by Duke, you would have some of your questions answered. It is evident from your comments that you ascribe to moral relativism. Moral relativism is a great evil and it prevents you from seeing evil and thus from standing up to it. I wonder what your views are on the homosexual movement's attack on religion. Does that bother you? If it doesn't then why does it bother you if Christians were to support traditional values in our society.
ReplyDeleteOne of your favorite ways to argue is for you to state something and then tell people to prove you wrong. I don't know the name of this logical fallacy, but I remember reading about one that is similar to it. Not being able to disprove something doesn't make it true. But in this case what you said in your first comment could be proven wrong: it would actually lead to the exact opposite of the government that we would want. The liberty that you support is the liberty that the French Revolution championed.
Toejam said: “You seem to suggest that Libertarians say they don't want to impose morality on some things but they do on others. This is true, but a pointless argument because the morality that they support is agreed upon by the entire population with only insignificant outliers.”
I am using morality to mean a code of ethical behavior that is in agreement with the laws of nature.
If what you said above is true then that would imply that there is no objectively correct morality because morality is relative to a specific society. So lets say that we lived in a society where murder, rape, or thief was acceptable in their moral code (this has been the case in some societies). Then according to the standard that you put forward, this would be the morality that that society should live by. I think that you are taking for granted the fact that our society's moral code and its laws were taken from the Judo-Christian religion. The liberty that I champion is not “mine” but the liberty that our country was founded on. Your liberty is the liberty that leads to slavery. Isn't it interesting that as Americans have become more immoral the government has grown and so too have the number of laws regulating everything thing we do on an unprecedented level. “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites . . . . Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Toejam said: “Enforcing a Christian morality will only lead to angst with a population that has so many freedoms because the vast majority of humans are sinners and will follow Satan if they are given the opportunity.”
ReplyDeleteWhy do we have and enforce any laws then? If the fact that laws will lead to angst among a population is the determining factor on whether we should have a law against something then we wouldn't any laws. No doubt the fact that you have to pay taxes leads to a lot of angst among the American people. Does this means we shouldn't have laws that require us to pay taxes?
I don't know of any completely Christan government in history. America came close in its early history and it was and still remains one of the freest societies to exist in history. In fact the least Christian and moral a government and society is the less free it is. Toejam said: “A libertarian government will let sinners go to their ultimate fate more swiftly. That fate is death.” This will not only let individuals suffer but it will allow them to bring down our civilization with them.
On the SSM marriage issue and homosexuality in general, do you agree with the militant homosexual movement's attack on religion? I already stated my views on this in this post and the last post I did. The point is that you may be content in not enforcing your moral code on society but that doesn't mean that homosexuals or somebody else won't. Allowing homosexuals to use government to promote their activity is giving them license to attack and persecute Christians. Some how that is accepted because they are championing "liberty".
My view on the homosexual attack on religion is the same with every other attack on religion: I hate it. I am more concerned with a type of government that will lead to a better America. A libertarian government will squash these gays far more effectively than trying to ram religion down their throat. I am proposing a tactic that will actually work.
ReplyDeleteI think you are confused about the message I am trying to communicate. I want to have a Christian morality dominate our country. I want to rid us of homosexuals. I am just proposing a way that will win this war on culture without resorting to sheer legislative force.
ReplyDeleteThink outside your box.
I am not speaking of relativism, I am speaking of reality. You have to know your enemy.
ReplyDeleteGive them what they want and they will suffer for it. As long as the government keeps the basic structure of: prevention of aggression, contractual rights, and private property...
The founding fathers gave almost zero power to the federal government. If you wanted to live in a gay state, so be it. I think you are falling very far from their point of view.
How does a libertarian government prevent an immoral society from having groups of people using the government to enforce their views on society as in the case of homosexuals? The government by its very nature is incapable of not promoting social policy like you want it to. You may not want the government to promote things like marriage and other norms and practices required for a free society to exist, but that does nothing to prevent other groups of people like the militant homosexual movement from undermining the foundation of our civilization.
ReplyDeleteOn the marriage issue civil marriages have been around longer than tax benefits for married couples. Tax benefits are not the only benefits of government recognizing marriage. There are also legal benefits. So if the government were to not provide tax benefits like you suggest then the homosexuals would still want to get married for those legal benefits. Would you support the government providing other legal benefits to SSM? With the SSM the issue is not so much the tax and legal benefits of marriage as it is to force society and people to accept their choice of life. In England SSM is legal. Here there is a gay couple suing the English church to force them to marry them. In this case the issue is about punishing an organization that doesn't agree with their choice of life. They are forcing their views on society.
There is no perfect government. The choice comes down to having one that is the best alternative with what we have. Libertarianism won't work because it would require the people to be perfect or to be completely moral in the sense that they would not eventually elect a tyrannical government. Libertarianism is incompatible with human nature. If you look at history and how society and civilization came to exist you will see that it was created to protect groups of people from the predation of other tribes of people. A group of people can exist by producing or by taking what others have produced. It is human nature to want to get something for free or with the least amount of effort. Government was created to restrain this tendency in people so that they could live together and to protect them from other groups of people that would prey on them. Human nature needs to be restrained to a certain extent and libertarianism doesn't do this to a great enough extent. The early American system of government was not perfect as evident by the current state of things, but I think that a government that promotes norms and practices of an ordered and free society is one that will give the greatest opportunity for freedom thrive. Any system of government will lead to tyranny due to human nature.
Toejamm said:"I am not speaking of relativism, I am speaking of reality. You have to know your enemy. Give them what they want and they will suffer for it. As long as the government keeps the basic structure of: prevention of aggression, contractual rights, and private property..."
ReplyDeleteOur civilization will collapse if you give them what they want. Homosexuals are getting what they want and at the same time persecuting Christians and forcing their views on society. Like in the case of the gay english couple suing the english church to force them to marry them in the church. SSM is legal in England.
Good discussion. I think a problem in having this debate is not having clear definitions of what we're all talking about. I think ToeJamm's Libertarian government would be the government of our Founding Fathers, which I think everyone here would consider to be acceptable.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think we need to go back to the article and look at the things Selwyn Duke is saying regarding laws being enforcement of morality, regardless of what the law is (or lack of law).
There were a lot of laws around at the time of our Founding Fathers that Libertarians wouldn't have found acceptable. Those laws were made and enforced at the state or lower levels, and they did enforce a fairly restrictive adherence to Judeo-Christian morality (Puritans are best known for this, but those laws were enforced across a lot wider area than New England). I think there are three big differences between then and now 1)American society was a lot more homogeneous then, ie English, so that people felt more that they were one group (at least those that had a say (ie vote)) which meant that they need feel so much that one group was being persecuted by another group, 2) the Christian (as opposed to any other religion) church provided, and could enforce, much social law without the need of government interference, and 3) most importantly, for the first ~250 years of English settlement in America, anyone who had a problem with these rules could go West. This served as a pressure release valve for discontent with societal norms.
All three of these conditions are gone now. I suppose Alaska maybe still fits 3) and not coincidentally is probably the most libertarian state in the union.
But the rest of us have to find a tolerable compromise with each other. I am 110% for a greatly reduced, less intrusive Federal govt. But, I assume that most of this intrusiveness will be pushed off to the states and they will have to deal with these things. I look at this as a good thing because politicians are a lot more controllable at the State level, but I don't look at it as abandoning behavior enforcement through law altogether.
If you read those examples of the militant homosexuals attacking Christians or any other beliefs systems that don't agree with the homosexuals choice of life you will see that there can be no compromise with them. Compromising with evil is itself evil. The way things were in America before the militant homosexual movement and the push for gay "rights" worked out just fine: people were free to go about living their lives the way they wanted to. Now with the push for gay rights you have the gay community enforcing their perverted morality on society. Libertarianism doesn't have a way to stop this as they refuse to get involved in social issues.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers were against homosexuality and some of the states had very harsh laws against it.
“Following the same moral precepts, each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?)
New York's law read, "That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] ... shall be from henceforth adjudged felony ... and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead."
Connecticut's law read, " if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death." Georgia's law (surprisingly -- at least for today's liberals) did not call for the death penalty, but stated, " ... shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime."
General George Washington dealt, at least once, directly with the issue of homosexual behavior in the Continental Army. A lieutenant Enslin was tried and convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with John Monhort, a soldier. The ruling declares, "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_founders_would_view_same_sex_marriage.html#ixzz2cXCO3Svr
SSM is about the destruction of the concept of marriage.
ReplyDelete“2. What is the state's interest in marriage?
First, to recognize the union that produces the state's citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That's all, folks.”
“6. How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?
It is the vehicle by which all civil marriages may soon be abolished, including yours. When children are no longer considered central to state purpose, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between any two (or more) people. A reversal of DOMA could give force to an emerging movement called "singlism," which argues that the state should cease recognition of marriage because it is discriminatory against those who do not have partners.
Furthermore, the un-defining of marriage is only one part of a package deal that includes the transgender push for the un-defining of gender. This is already happening under the radar through laws that define gender identity only on self-perception: seeing yourself on any given day as male, female, both, or neither. If that goal is achieved, the reduction of your "marriage" to social and legal gibberish will be complete. And as we become more isolated from family bonds in the eyes of the state, the state becomes freer to define our humanity.”
"7. How about we just "get the state out of the marriage business" altogether?
This is a silly slogan that actually invites the government to regulate our personal associations on a scale we've never before witnessed. Libertarians like to discuss "privatizing" marriage, but we should smell a big fat government trap here.
State recognition of marriage serves to ensure the autonomy of the family, which in turn serves as the greatest buffer zone between the individual and the power of the state. If civil marriage is abolished, all families instead become partnerships subject to contract law, with the state ever more aggressively defining and regulating those contracts. And how can we expect the government to respect family autonomy if we no longer require the government to recognize it?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/ten_qa_on_same-sex_marriage_canards_and_evasions.html#ixzz2cTTkShc2
Point 7 of the American Thinker article is interesting, I hadn't thought of that before.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly why the government is seeking to destroy marriage and the family unit because it stands in their way.
ReplyDeleteThe government recognizing SSM would lead to the exact opposite of freedom as we know it. If gay marriage becomes a protected class recognized by the state, then anybody or any group that opposes this group will be subject to punishment by the law for discriminating against them. This is already happening as evident by the 8 examples given in the post.
"By any objective measure, the gay-marriage advocates are trying to deprive the rest of us of our liberty to hold and to express our beliefs. Ironically, the attack on traditional marriage is, at the same time, a threat against liberty itself."[...]
" It is not at all far-fetched to project that today's harassment will become full-scale prosecution if the full gay marriage legal agenda is enacted (as is already the case in Canada and parts of Europe)."[...]
"The redefinition of marriage by the state would not only mean a violation of the freedom of those who disagree: it would be a giant step closer to a government that is genuinely totalitarian.[...]
"A law that redefines marriage to mean something completely different, something it has never been, is a prescriptive law, one that prescribes or creates a new reality. This is a power that few governments, and certainly not our constitutional republic, have ever claimed in regard to marriage. It is to treat something that the state has always recognized as pre-existent, above and beyond itself, as if it were a creation of the state, to be manipulated, redefined, and at some point (why not, after all?) even abolished at the whim of the ruling power."[...]
"...perhaps of more interest to libertarians and other lovers of freedom, families are, along with organized religion, the most important "mediating institutions" between the individual and the state. Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help serve as a check on the government, and provide individuals with a way of influencing the state much more effectively than they can do on their own. These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the lone citizen. That's why totalitarians of every stripe make the subjugation or even destruction of these institutions (especially the family and organized religion) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate, redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for individual liberty.
The desire of libertarians to work to preserve personal freedom is quite understandable, but the legal redefinition of marriage would do just the opposite: it necessarily means the loss of freedom to express and to act according to beliefs at odds with the gay agenda; more ominously, it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented power for remaking society according to its own designs."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/gay_marriage_threatens_our_freedom.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/08/22/nm-court-says-christian-photogs-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-lgbt-weddings-n1671280
ReplyDelete"The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian photographer [Huguenin] who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act and one justice warned the photographers were 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.'"[...]
“'The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,' Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.
Bosson said the Christian photographers are now 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.'”
“'Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,' he wrote. 'It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.'"[...]
“'Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.'"[...]
"Ken Klukowsi, of the Family Research Council, called the ruling profoundly disturbing."
“This decision may bring to Americans’ attention the serious threat to religious liberty posed by overbearing government agencies when it comes to redefining marriage,” he said. “Rather than live and let live, this is forcing religious Americans to violate the basic teachings of their faith or lose their jobs.”
"Lorence said they are considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court."
“'This is very coercive, very authoritarian to crush those who do not agree and make public examples of them – and in a free society, that simply should not be,' he said."
I find these issues of businesses being forced to cater to homosexuals against their religious beliefs odd. Why would the homosexual couple force this issue (outside of the publicity)? I know that if I were the photographer (or baker as was the case here in Gresham recently), I would make sure that the in-my-face homosexual customer received a very poor product, if forced to provide one. However, I would be happy to refer the customers to a photographer who would welcome their business.
ReplyDeleteOdd? This is not odd. This is a necessary consequence of the government recognizing SSM and gay rights and an apathetic attitude towards homosexuality by society. If you and society thinks that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it is normal and should be accepted then isn't it logical and just to believe that discriminating against them is wrong. There is an inverse relationship between the law's and society's acceptance of homosexuality and between religious and personal freedom of those that hold traditional values. The supreme court has labeled those that hold views against homosexuality as "enemies of the human race" in the words of justice Scalia summing up the majority's opinion of the court that struck down a provision of the DOMA.
ReplyDeleteThe judge in the case mentioned above said: "'Bosson [the judge] said the Christian photographers are now 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.'"
Go back and look at those 9 examples I gave in the post above the evil preaches tolerance quote and you will see that this is what happens when society is forced to accept the homosexuals choice of life. The militant homosexuals are not looking for passive acceptance they are looking for active acceptance by society through force.
In Europe you had a Swedish pastor jailed for preaching against homosexuality in church. In Scotland an America was arrested for "hate speech" for speaking out against homosexuality.
In England SSM is legal, but you still have gays suing churches to force them to wed them in the church. The U.K. government is saying that it might be problematic to protect the church's religious rights.
Look at what is happening in the military to those that speak out against homosexuality. Chaplains and other service members are being punished and or forced out. There are many examples of this for it to be isolated.
You see, you might not want to force your views on society or you might not want the government to get involved in social issues but that doesn't mean that others won't. Now is the time to realize what is going on and to take a stand. This type of persecution will only get worse as time goes on.
Here are other examples http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF06J60.pdf
Are you sure that society is being forced to accept homosexuality?
ReplyDeleteI know your opinions represent a large following of people who oppose same sex unions but what does an individual’s sexual preference have to do with government recognition of union of property? That's sort of what it boils down to, taxes, property, and various benefits.
Have you considered the morality of excluding that recognition and benefit from those who have a different sexual preference?
These cases of alleged persecution should be expected because there is a new law. It’d be impossible to prepare for all the what if’s when a new law is created. That is why these unique situations that are popping up, with the right to refuse service and military chaplains. The military chaplains are not being forced to perform same sex marriages. Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act says a chaplain cannot be forced to act contrary to his religious beliefs.
You should be blogging Paul Harvey to tell you "the rest of the story" about some of these cases you reference because I'm sure whatever blog you pulled them from did not have access to all the facts.
The case in Gresham is interesting, and apparently not the first of its kind either. It all depends on what was said. The bakery is walking a fine line citing religious beliefs as their right to refuse. The owner of the business has a responsibility to its customers to serve them without discrimination but they do have the right to refuse for certain circumstances. He could have said they were being disruptive which is a perfectly legal reason to refuse service. Whoever was being the biggest asshole about their beliefs is the one at fault but I think the owner really screwed himself by citing religious beliefs as reason of refusal. He should have been smarter, you don’t have to get on your soapbox whenever someone challenges your religious beliefs, there are better ways to stand up for it. It's unfortunate that a business would have to be so cautious and weary of being sued or fined. However, there are nonsense cases such as the infamous McDonalds coffee that was "too hot". Jehovah witnesses had to bring their religious cause to the supreme court many times for similar circumstances of government interfering with their right to practice their religion. Check out some of their cases.
The instances where Christians are being punished and persecuted for their beliefs are documented cases and are therefore not alleged. Some of the examples were from actual news stories others were from conservative blogs and one was actually from a pro-gay website. You have to get these stories from conservative blogs because the mainstream media, aside from Fox News, won't report on these stories.
ReplyDeleteSociety and especially those in the military are being forced to accept homosexuality. That is evident in the case of the New Mexico photographer were the state supreme court judge said that the Christian photographers are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives”. Military chaplains and other military members that express disapproval of homosexuality are being punished and silenced. There was an instances where “a chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel”. Or “A female Army chaplain’s assistant recently came forward, telling conservative commentator Todd Starnes that she was reprimanded for posting a message on her personal Facebook page. In it, she called homosexuality a sin and spoke out against pastors who support same-sex relationships.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the 26-year-old told Starnes that, as a result of her post, she was accused of creating an environment that was both hostile and antagonistic. But the boldest claim she makes is that her commander gave her a choice: Either take the message down or be knocked down in both rank and pay.” What about the gay couple suing a church in England wanting to force the church to wed them in the church?
Goekface said: “Have you considered the morality of excluding that recognition and benefit from those who have a different sexual preference?”
What is the morality in excluding the recognition and benefits of couples that are composed of siblings or arraignments composed of more than two people or couples composed of an animal and a human or couples composed of an adult and a kid? (Believe it or not there is already an attempt underway to normalize such relationships.) Where do we stop redefining marriage? What is considered normal? If you don't accept the objective boundaries on human sexual relationships that are put in place by nature then the boundary becomes a subjective one that can be anything and everything. Where is the morality in the government recognizing SSM and as a necessary consequence persecuting those with religious beliefs against homosexuality. This persecution is a necessary consequence of the state recognizing SSM and gay rights. If you think that nothing is wrong with homosexuality and that is should promoted and protected by the government then discriminating against homosexuals should be punished by the law.
Why should gay people get any marriage benefits? The government gives benefits to married people because it is in the interest of society for people to go out and to produce kids and raise them is a nurturing caring environment that will give the kids the greatest chances of being successful adults. Gay people can't do that. Society has not interest in promoting SSM. Why do gay people think that they can come along and redefine an institution, marriage, that has been around for thousands of years and then attack those that don't agree with this. That seems very arrogant to me. Also if you read what was posted in the comments you will see that the recognition of gay rights and SSM will lead to less freedom as allowing the government to redefine marriage would remove a bulwark and defense against a large and tyrannical government which is the family unit. See my Aug. 21 comment.
ReplyDeleteGoekface said:”Whoever was being the biggest asshole about their beliefs is the one at fault but I think the owner really screwed himself by citing religious beliefs as reason of refusal.”
Using that logic it would be okay for a rapist to rape a victim because the victim was the “biggest asshole” about asserting their belief that it is wrong to rape someone.
The supreme court has traditionally ruled in favor of religious rights. One example being where quakers ,or whatever group it was, refused to be drafted into the military because of their religious beliefs. The supreme court ruled that the quakers could not be drafted because it violate their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are protected under the Constitution. With the advent of the gay rights movement religious freedoms are being snuffed out in the name of nondiscrimination. Why can't gay people just go about living their lives and stop trying to force everybody to accept their unnatural way they choose to live? Go be gay but don't expect or force me to accept or promote that.
00139x wrote: "using that logic it would be okay for a rapist to rape a victim because the victim was the biggest asshole about asserting their belief that it is wrong to rape someone."
ReplyDeleteOh jeez, you took it way out of context. Allow me to clarify, one person offended the other by imposing their beliefs on each other. Who was "more right" or "more wrong"? Unfortunately it is a legal matter because one person had an obligation as a business owner to operate in accordance with state and federal law. You don’t have to boil it down to rape, that’s immoral. This particular situation is one where both sides are morally justified to do what they did. If there is a wrong to be found here, it would be the person who least respectful of the other.
“Why should gay people get any marriage benefits? The government gives benefits to married people because it is in the interest of society for people to go out and to produce kids and raise them is a nurturing caring environment that will give the kids the greatest chances of being successful adults. Gay people can't do that.”
It’s because homosexuality has become more socially acceptable. There is something called a “policy window” where three streams of happenings come together and action is taken to create a new law in our government; the problem stream, the political stream, and the policy stream. That’s how American public policy is set. It happened, the Obama administration, an abundance of openly gay individuals who are crying foul over discrimination, and a lack of alternatives. It all came together, opened the window and DOMA was passed. It’s how our government works, it is how out of all the problems we face in our country gay marriage took the spotlight and change was implemented. I don’t think our country is in a situation where issues like this take the spotlight but perhaps it was easier than settling economic issues. Obama will take his victories where ever he can get them.
“Where do we stop redefining marriage? What is considered normal? If you don't accept the objective boundaries on human sexual relationships that are put in place by nature then the boundary becomes a subjective one that can be anything and everything.”
Apparently we don’t, it will get refined as it has over centuries. From a religious standpoint there doesn’t have to be any redefining. Christians can still get married the way they want and that doesn’t have to change at all. However, with the government involved, it is subject to change to ensure fair and equal rights of its citizens.
Natural boundaries?! Round pegs fit in round holes. Show me a square peg on a human and I will denounce it from entering a round hole.
The criterion that you listed for who was in the wrong was whoever was the biggest asshole about asserting their beliefs. In the case you mentioned the gay couple were the one that were the aggressor. They went into a business requesting a service be performed for them. The baker refused citing his religious beliefs. The baker was being punished by the law for adhering to his religious beliefs. In the case of the New Mexico photographer there was a law in that state saying that gay people could not be discriminated against. A logical and necessary result of laws such as these is that people that hold religious beliefs against homosexuality should be compelled to violate those beliefs by being punished by the law. The New Mexico supreme court justice said it very well: “the Christian photographers are now 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives”. This is wrong and is a grave danger to religious freedom and freedom in general.
ReplyDeleteIn the words of a gay rights activist legalizing SSM is about destroying the institution of marriage. This destruction of marriage is pointed out in my second comment on Aug. 20.
Both of your arguments that gay people should get marriage benefits because it has become more socially acceptable and that round pegs in round holes is the determining factor in what is natural and unnatural could be used to justify just about anything such as incest, beasteality, polygamy, and phedophila. There is an attempt to normalize these behaviors, especially incest. At what point do you draw the line and say that a particular behavior is morally wrong or unacceptable? Homosexual behavior is unnatural. One doesn't need religion to tell them that. All you have to do is look at nature to figure this out. Your first argument is stating that because something has become socially acceptable it should be legalized does not recognize any objective right and wrong: what is morally acceptable is relative to what society we live in. This logic could be used to argue that murder should be legalized because society says that it is acceptable.