The good, the bad, and the thin line
Cut, Thrust and Christ - Newsweek Society - MSNBC.com
There seems to be a fine line between "right" and "correct" (or even just plain wrong) when it comes to politics mixing with evangelicism. I have high respect for anyone who can effectively debate their issues, especially Christians who seem to have earned a special stigma in the country today (how often have I heard things like "religious right nuts"). I believe in the Word of God; I also believe that God would choose more than one vehicle for His message. It probably is the only way I can rationalize the myriad of religions and spiritual schools of thought found not just today but throughout human history. So it is refreshing to see young, bright minds debate issues that correspond to both politics and morality.
However, even though I find it "refreshing," and may agree with some of their issues, I find it unnerving that, based off of how I understand this article, there is a movement to FORCE people to behave a certain way based solely off of one book (the Bible). I live by the rules in the Bible; but there are those who do not (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Should US law therefore put these people at a disadvantage? Some people would probably say, right now, "well, the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state." That's not what I'm looking at. The line of the Constitution I'm looking at is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." This includes legislation based off of a religious doctrine. But then, I guess this is why evangelical debaters are trying to (someday) make it to such esteemed offices like the Supreme Court, where THEY can interpret the Constitution the way THEY want to.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and had the First Amendment in mind, they weren't aiming to separate church and state, per se...they wanted to avoid an "official" religion for the US. If you take a look at recent history and think about the countries that DO have an "official" religion--so official that it is law--then you know why I'm reluctant to have any laws in the US based solely off of religious doctrine. The problem is finding that line between what is right and what is correct; and even then, "right" and "correct" is relevant to each and every person's way of thinking. What is the best litmus test for a law to determine its intent: to protect our citizens, or to infringe on rights based on religious point-of-view, or even a little of both? How can we not only reject gay-rights laws, but do our damnest to enact anti-gay laws (or laws that single gays out); while at the same time criticize Muslim countries for the way they treat women? Didn't the US, at one time, treat women pretty much as second-class citizens? Could they ever hold office back in the 1700s or 1800s? They couldn't even VOTE until the 20th century, based off of (you guessed it) what the people of the time thought the Bible said was right and wrong.
Times change. Many of the rules and guidelines in the Bible are still quite relevant today; but many are not. To assume that God also doesn't realize this, and to constrain His law based upon something that MAN wrote (God-inspired nonetheless) hundreds of years ago, is asinine. This is MY litmus test: "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." And this is the only law from the Bible that never changes.
Any law that violates these two commandments are not only incorrect but flat-out WRONG. The 14th Amendment definitely follows in line with second of these great Commandments. Anti-gay legislation automatically signifies--in my mind--that there is reason to think gays to be unworthy of equal treatment in some way, and tells me what is in the minds and hearts of the men (and women) who form these laws.
Evangelical debaters should probably stay behind the pulpit if they intend on using their powers to pass laws and "make an impact in the field of law on abortion and gay rights, to get back to Americans' godly heritage" (for example). They can USE their beliefs (specifically the two Greatest Commandments) to help them guide themselves when it comes to legislation; but they should not embody strict religious beliefs in legislation, lest we one day turn into a Christian Iran.
There seems to be a fine line between "right" and "correct" (or even just plain wrong) when it comes to politics mixing with evangelicism. I have high respect for anyone who can effectively debate their issues, especially Christians who seem to have earned a special stigma in the country today (how often have I heard things like "religious right nuts"). I believe in the Word of God; I also believe that God would choose more than one vehicle for His message. It probably is the only way I can rationalize the myriad of religions and spiritual schools of thought found not just today but throughout human history. So it is refreshing to see young, bright minds debate issues that correspond to both politics and morality.
However, even though I find it "refreshing," and may agree with some of their issues, I find it unnerving that, based off of how I understand this article, there is a movement to FORCE people to behave a certain way based solely off of one book (the Bible). I live by the rules in the Bible; but there are those who do not (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Should US law therefore put these people at a disadvantage? Some people would probably say, right now, "well, the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state." That's not what I'm looking at. The line of the Constitution I'm looking at is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." This includes legislation based off of a religious doctrine. But then, I guess this is why evangelical debaters are trying to (someday) make it to such esteemed offices like the Supreme Court, where THEY can interpret the Constitution the way THEY want to.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and had the First Amendment in mind, they weren't aiming to separate church and state, per se...they wanted to avoid an "official" religion for the US. If you take a look at recent history and think about the countries that DO have an "official" religion--so official that it is law--then you know why I'm reluctant to have any laws in the US based solely off of religious doctrine. The problem is finding that line between what is right and what is correct; and even then, "right" and "correct" is relevant to each and every person's way of thinking. What is the best litmus test for a law to determine its intent: to protect our citizens, or to infringe on rights based on religious point-of-view, or even a little of both? How can we not only reject gay-rights laws, but do our damnest to enact anti-gay laws (or laws that single gays out); while at the same time criticize Muslim countries for the way they treat women? Didn't the US, at one time, treat women pretty much as second-class citizens? Could they ever hold office back in the 1700s or 1800s? They couldn't even VOTE until the 20th century, based off of (you guessed it) what the people of the time thought the Bible said was right and wrong.
Times change. Many of the rules and guidelines in the Bible are still quite relevant today; but many are not. To assume that God also doesn't realize this, and to constrain His law based upon something that MAN wrote (God-inspired nonetheless) hundreds of years ago, is asinine. This is MY litmus test: "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." And this is the only law from the Bible that never changes.
Any law that violates these two commandments are not only incorrect but flat-out WRONG. The 14th Amendment definitely follows in line with second of these great Commandments. Anti-gay legislation automatically signifies--in my mind--that there is reason to think gays to be unworthy of equal treatment in some way, and tells me what is in the minds and hearts of the men (and women) who form these laws.
Evangelical debaters should probably stay behind the pulpit if they intend on using their powers to pass laws and "make an impact in the field of law on abortion and gay rights, to get back to Americans' godly heritage" (for example). They can USE their beliefs (specifically the two Greatest Commandments) to help them guide themselves when it comes to legislation; but they should not embody strict religious beliefs in legislation, lest we one day turn into a Christian Iran.
posted by xanadian at 10:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home