| Jungleman528 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 10:41 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
So I'll share what I said, and what my friend said. (Obviously this post is directed more to Christians).
Me: In America, being tolerant is defined as to when you subscribe to the opinion of the majoryl when your opinion differs you are intolerant.
Friend : "In America, being a decent human being means not expecting others to adhere to your moral code. It also means not hating others, or attempting to legislate others, because you disagree with what they think is 'decent' or 'right.' The way your neighbor lives (if inside the bounds of the law) has no effect on you, it should be of no concern." |
| Loading... | |
| Geneticist |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 10:47 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jungleman528
So I'll share what I said, and what my friend said. (Obviously this post is directed more to Christians).
Me: In America, being tolerant is defined as to when you subscribe to the opinion of the majoryl when your opinion differs you are intolerant.
Friend : "In America, being a decent human being means not expecting others to adhere to your moral code. It also means not hating others, or attempting to legislate others, because you disagree with what they think is 'decent' or 'right.' The way your neighbor lives (if inside the bounds of the law) has no effect on you, it should be of no concern."
You're friend is right.
You may disagree with how others live. If they are a Christian, then you are right to correct them. If they are not, then you are to preach the truth. However, this is a secular nation, and you do not have the right to hate or force others to live according to your expectations. |
| Loading... | |
| stephenmills1000 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 10:48 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
The irony of your friend's statement...
Quote: being a decent human being means not expecting others to adhere to your moral code
can be found immediately following:
Quote: not hating others, or attempting to legislate others, because you disagree with what they think is 'decent' or 'right.' The way your neighbor lives (if inside the bounds of the law) has no effect on you, it should be of no concern.
as what he says is in fact an expectation of how people should adhere to a moral code (specifically his ideas of what they should be), something he explicitly condemned in his preceding statement. While noble, it remains hypocritical.
I generally agree with what you said at the beginning, and it's a shame really that it has gone from rational and level-headed discourse about differeces to expecting others to adhere to your views at risk of being ridiculed and/or socially ostracized. |
| Loading... | |
| Jungleman528 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 11:08 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
| The hypocritical nature of his claim is what I was feeling. I respect people being able to to make their own decisions, but issues like abortion and gay marriage affect everyone, not just individuals. |
| Loading... | |
| Geneticist |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 11:27 AM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jungleman528
The hypocritical nature of his claim is what I was feeling. I respect people being able to to make their own decisions, but issues like abortion and gay marriage affect everyone, not just individuals.
How does Gay Marriage affect you? |
| Loading... | |
| Jungleman528 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 11:35 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Every decision in a country affects everyone. Even if it doesn't physically harm me, it changes public school's ideal to push and support a view it previously didn't even mention. It will affect my children being confronted by these issues, whereas it wasn't even thought of when I was a youth. It will also confuse people into thinking marriage is just about the feeling of love and chasing that feelings, instead of a serious institution. It changes ideology, which in turn changes opinions of the masses. |
| Loading... | |
| Geneticist |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 11:45 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jungleman528Every decision in a country affects everyone. Even if it doesn't physically harm me, it changes public school's ideal to push and support a view it previously didn't even mention. It will affect my children being confronted by these issues, whereas it wasn't even thought of when I was a youth. It will also confuse people into thinking marriage is just about the feeling of love and chasing that feelings, instead of a serious institution. It changes ideology, which in turn changes opinions of the masses.
People already think marriage is just about feeling love. We have a 50% divorce rate without gay marriage. So you have kind of missed the boat on that one. And so this point is a non-issue.
And so what if mass opinion changes. It changes on many issues. Again how does this directly impact you?
The only semi-plausible argument you have is the attitudes taught and encouraged in schools. But if you are expecting secular schools to provide the moral teaching of your children, then that is your failure as a parent. You are responsible for that.
In contrast, those who do not share your views or beliefs are forced to abide by moral standards that do not affect the lives of others. You may morally believe homosexuality to be a sin. I agree, it is. But we do not live in a nation where our laws are determined solely by religious belief. We are a secular nation where freedom is a basic right.
|
| Loading... | |
| Tim |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 12:24 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jungleman528Every decision in a country affects everyone. Even if it doesn't physically harm me, it changes public school's ideal to push and support a view it previously didn't even mention. It will affect my children being confronted by these issues, whereas it wasn't even thought of when I was a youth. It will also confuse people into thinking marriage is just about the feeling of love and chasing that feelings, instead of a serious institution. It changes ideology, which in turn changes opinions of the masses.
You are exactly right--every legislative decision affects everyone, at least in principle, and this is one important fact that political libertarians tend not to recognize, for all their good intentions. Libertarianism tends toward a view according to which individual liberty (or to be more precise, the right to do what we wish as long as we don't hurt anyone else) is the highest, if not the only good the State must secure. Conservatism tends toward the view that the "components" of civil society have natures (e.g. human persons, various institutions such as marriage, etc.) and thus, that legislation must secure individual freedoms, but only those freedoms that take into account the natures and proper functions of those "components."
By the way, it sure sounds like your friend expects you to adhere to that part of his moral code which claims, "You must never tell others what they ought to do." But he's telling you what to do. He needs to know that that's self-defeating reasoning.
FYI, you might consider checking out what the Acton Institute and the Ruth Institute have to say about these issues.
|
| Loading... | |
| Tim |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 12:39 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by GeneticistQuote: Originally Posted by Jungleman528Every decision in a country affects everyone. Even if it doesn't physically harm me, it changes public school's ideal to push and support a view it previously didn't even mention. It will affect my children being confronted by these issues, whereas it wasn't even thought of when I was a youth. It will also confuse people into thinking marriage is just about the feeling of love and chasing that feelings, instead of a serious institution. It changes ideology, which in turn changes opinions of the masses. And so what if mass opinion changes. It changes on many issues. Again how does this directly impact you?
See the Ruth Institute's material on the harms it has already begun causing to traditional marriage, and to individuals (I'm not even thinking Chick-fil-A, here, though they're included)
Quote: Originally Posted by Geneticist
The only semi-plausible argument you have is the attitudes taught and encouraged in schools. But if you are expecting secular schools to provide the moral teaching of your children, then that is your failure as a parent. You are responsible for that.
Dallas Willard has said we're all undergoing "spiritual formation", it's just a question of what we're being formed by. It's certainly the parent's responsibility to give their child a moral education, but the school environment will also inform that child's moral development, for better or worse. Just because the individual is responsible, it doesn't follow that the school therefore has no responsibility for the moral education of its students.
Quote: Originally Posted by Geneticist
In contrast, those who do not share your views or beliefs are forced to abide by moral standards that do not affect the lives of others. You may morally believe homosexuality to be a sin. I agree, it is. But we do not live in a nation where our laws are determined solely by religious belief. We are a secular nation where freedom is a basic right.
The idea that human persons have a nature, or that marriage has a nature, etc., are not uniquely religious ideas, though some religions do agree with those ideas. This is why those who think traditional marriage is only justifiable on religious grounds are not only mistaken, but show a troubling lack of familiarity with the issues. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 12:50 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
| That seems less like a rebuttal to Christianity and more a rebuttal to evangelism. |
| Loading... | |
| stephenmills1000 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 01:29 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Couldn't redefining marriage become a slippery slope as well? I do not have any precedent off the top of my head, but it sure seems possible.
Such that if a man loves his horse, why shouldn't he be able to marry it, if not for the benefits? Or if a father wants to marry his daughter- is anyone going to question a father's love for his daughter?
I don't see why there is such an attack on the institution of marriage and not so much a fight for equal treatment and benefit in the eyes of the law, if such a relationship is desired. Why should it be so redefined, potentially making everything and anything else potentially up for grabs? |
| Loading... | |
| Tim |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 01:38 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by stephenmills1000
Couldn't redefining marriage become a slippery slope as well? I do not have any precedent off the top of my head, but it sure seems possible.
Such that if a man loves his horse, why shouldn't he be able to marry it, if not for the benefits? Or if a father wants to marry his daughter- is anyone going to question a father's love for his daughter?
I don't see why there is such an attack on the institution of marriage and not so much a fight for equal treatment and benefit in the eyes of the law, if such a relationship is desired. Why should it be so redefined, potentially making everything and anything else potentially up for grabs?
Bingo. That's one of the biggest risks. On what grounds can one resist saying marriage cannot include a father and his daughter? A woman and her horse? Or her 10 cats? Or her potted plant? Three people? A dozen? You get the picture. On what ground shall we now make the distinction? And it's a real risk: people are already making such arguments in courts of law and, as I understand it, winning on grounds of precedent.
Again, The Ruth Institute and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse document this stuff. |
| Loading... | |
| depthcharge623 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 02:10 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
That seems less like a rebuttal to Christianity and more a rebuttal to evangelism.
Right, and I would go a bit further and say the culture that happens to often come with evangelism. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that talks about what should and shouldn't be legislated. |
| Loading... | |
| Jungleman528 |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 05:15 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by stephenmills1000The irony of your friend's statement... Quote: being a decent human being means not expecting others to adhere to your moral code can be found immediately following: Quote: not hating others, or attempting to legislate others, because you disagree with what they think is 'decent' or 'right.' The way your neighbor lives (if inside the bounds of the law) has no effect on you, it should be of no concern. as what he says is in fact an expectation of how people should adhere to a moral code (specifically his ideas of what they should be), something he explicitly condemned in his preceding statement. While noble, it remains hypocritical. I generally agree with what you said at the beginning, and it's a shame really that it has gone from rational and level-headed discourse about differeces to expecting others to adhere to your views at risk of being ridiculed and/or socially ostracized.
So I said this to my friend (about the irony), and his reply was "Treating others with dignity and basic respect isn't a part of 'morality.' it is the fundamental basis of human dignity." |
| Loading... | |
| Tim |
| Posted 07/31/12 at 05:38 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by depthcharge623Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
That seems less like a rebuttal to Christianity and more a rebuttal to evangelism. Right, and I would go a bit further and say the culture that happens to often come with evangelism. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that talks about what should and shouldn't be legislated.
Well, for one, the Bible isn't the only source of guidance for human beings, let alone Christians, so even if the Bible were silent, that wouldn't mean we'd be left in ignorance. There also exists natural law and our consciences.
But about specifically biblical guidance in legislation, the Bible obviously isn't written as a voter's guide to a modern election, listing specific ballot items, etc. But that does not mean it fails to give guidance on what should and shouldn't be legislated. Indeed, it gives substantive guidance on many issues, usually via general principles that require taking into account the particulars of a given situation. The particulars could include things like whether some piece of legislation, say, violates the sanctity of life--in which case, it is immoral to draw a law up that permits abortion; or whether it keeps someone from turning their labor into wealth--in which case, certain economic conditions must be legislated for. And so on. |
| Loading... | |
