Now that President Obama has declared himself in favor of
legalizing same-sex marriage, the implications of its legalization have to be
examined closely.
Interestingly, the latest issue of Christianity Today hosted three editorials on the role of Christians
regarding adoptions or foster care placements to homosexual couples. This
question is now on the cutting edge. As gay marriage becomes legalized in the
various states, Christians and Christian agencies will not be able to opt out
from placing children /babies with gay couples.
Paul Shrier, professor of practical theology at Azusa Pacific
University, defended
Christians who would entrust the children to gays:
- Several years ago, I facilitated a faith-based luncheon at Azusa Pacific University to promote foster care among faith-based organizations. We invited representatives of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups. (CT, May 2012, 48)
Shrier suggests that if Christians have no moral qualms
about placing children in foster care with Muslims, then they should have none
regarding gay couples.
This argument is far from a slam-dunk. If we are concerned
about the welfare of the child, then there are compelling reasons to hesitate
placing a child with an Islamic family. According to one Hadith (a saying of
Muhammad), anyone who leaves Islam deserves death:
- The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I (Muhammad) am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims. (Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17)
How can we ignore this in consideration of child placement! Shrier
also claims that “there has been a lot of solid, reliable research on the
outcomes for children fostered or adopted by stable gay couple.” However, all
of this research has been hotly contested. In another of the three editorials,
Ryan T. Anderson states:
- Not surprisingly, the best social science confirms the biblical truth that children do best when reared by a mom and a dad. (49)
Shrier concludes his argument by citing the example of Michael
Klausman, president of the CBS
Studio Center
who confided that:
- When the hit TV show Will & Grace [which has been identified as influencing many in favor of the gay lifestyle] first came out, Christians sent letters condemning him… “I guess I could have just taken a stand if I agreed with them”…But God didn’t tell him to do that, so he didn’t…Klausman also noted that if he had quit his job over Will & Grace, he would have lost his influence in the arena.
Why wasn’t Klausman able to find the guidance he needed from
Scripture? Why did he require God to personally show him, when He had already
made this issue so abundantly clear in Scripture? Did retaining his presidency
induce him to compromise? And if he had compromised, what possible Godly
influence could he still exert?
The gay political agenda is militant and intolerant, prohibiting
any choice other than its own. Diversity has no place in their agenda. Already,
several Christian adoptive agencies have been forced out of business, rather
than to compromise their principles. Others have lost their jobs, rather than
participating in the same-sex marriage process. Public schools are now being
coerced to legitimize the gay lifestyle, and parents are often prevented from
opting their children out of such “education.”
In short, the gay agenda sends forth lengthy tentacles to
remake society. If the stats are any indication of our future, we should expect
severely heightened levels of suicide, depression, mental illness, and
substance abuse. Caring means warning!
Mann: The gay political agenda is militant and intolerant, prohibiting any choice other than its own.
ReplyDeleteComming from a commited member of a totalitarian and intolerant religion, that's a little hypocritical of you.
Mann: Diversity has no place in their agenda.
This is also a lie. No where are homosexuals demanding that Christians cannot continue believing whatever they want.
All the so called "gay political agenda" are asking for is equality before the law of a secular state.
Mann: Already, several Christian adoptive agencies have been forced out of business, rather than to compromise their principles.
This is an example of people being willing to cause suffering in others rather than comply with secular law.
Mann: Others have lost their jobs, rather than participating in the same-sex marriage process.
Again, there is no sense of totalitarianism or lack of diversity here. The cases I'm aware of, the people failed to carry out their jobs, and either resigned or were fired for it.
Mann: Public schools are now being coerced to legitimize the gay lifestyle, and parents are often prevented from opting their children out of such “education.”
Wow - people are told that homosexuals actually exist, aren't evil monsters, and are generally happy like everyone else, and all of a sudden the Christian sky is falling in?
So much for the tolerance and love of diversity your brand of Christianity maintains.
Mann: If the stats are any indication of our future, we should expect severely heightened levels of suicide, depression, mental illness, and substance abuse.
Actually, if the stats are any indication, and acceptance of homosexuals into society becomes greater, and the demonisation of them subsides, then we can expect to see reduced levels of these negatives.
Mann: Caring means warning!
Caring also means not misrepresenting arguments and evidence in favour of a belief you hold but others don't.
“If I see you beating someone with a stick, and I take your stick away, I’m not oppressing *you*.” - Matt Dillahunty
The above quote sums up Christian claims of "Oppression", "Intolerance", etc of the attempt to treat homosexuals equally in secular society.
Many Christians have already lost their jobs because they wouldn’t violate their conscience. Sadly, their employers wouldn’t condescend to allow others to do those tasks that Christians are now coerced into doing.
DeleteI’ve already posted two separate accounts where a Christian in a graduate counseling program were required to go through re-education in order to acknowledge that gay sex is totally acceptable. They couldn’t accept this and were dismissed from the program.
No one is saying that the gays can’t start their own colleges and teach what they want. However, the gay agenda is forcing thought-conformity on everyone else, even in State schools, where Christians are being belittled – how’s that for bullying – and expelled for expressive their own ideas.
Now there is even a law being pushed through the California legislature to ban counseling for any minor who wants out of the gay life. Meanwhile, invasive sex-change therapy is being encouraged!
It is pointless to continue this discussion and to listen to your personal attacks – very typical of the bullying associated with this agenda.
Daniel, would you oppose the firing of a Catholic whose job involved the processing of divorce papers, who refused to do so due to it being against their religious beliefs?
DeleteHow about the other examples I've given, such as an Orthodox Jewish employee at a butcher shop who refuses to handle pork because it is against his religious beliefs?
How about an Islamic cashier who refuses to sell alcohol, or who refuses to serve women who have their faces revealed, and aren't in the company of a male relative?
Or how about an Islamic teacher who refused to have girls in his class because that was against his beliefs?
Would you argue against the above people being fired for refusing to carry out their jobs, on the grounds of religious belief or "conscience"?
If you would support the above examples keeping their jobs even though they refuse to carry them out, then I'd love to hear your reasoning.
If you would be ok with the above examples of people being fired for refusing to carry out their jobs, then how do your examples differ?
Can you not see that your position appears, from the outside, to be incredibly inconsistent, and appears to rely upon your particular set of sectarian beliefs and prejudices to be privileged by a secular government?
I am really interested in what your rationale is.
In this country, we’ve traditionally tried to accommodate to sincerely held beliefs. For instance, the Supreme Court granted the Jehovah Witnesses the right to not salute the flag. The Court also granted the “Conscientious Objector” status, placing the undo burden upon those who were willing to fight.
DeleteI think that these types of accommodations have made this nation great. Even in prisons where the inmates have lost their rights, this nation tries to accommodate to their various beliefs, sometimes unwisely.
So would I try to accommodate to the beliefs of these various people? Yes! Although there are times that accommodation militates powerfully against national interest. That’s why we have laws.
Mann: So would I try to accommodate to the beliefs of these various people? Yes!
ReplyDeleteThank you for so clearly admitting to promoting a terrible cultural and societal relativism.
So much for equality, and the rights of employers to fire people who do not carry out the jobs they are hired for.
If we were to follow your lead, we could kiss the civil rights of minorities good bye. Anti-Semitism, sexiam and racism are fine, it seems, since they're based upon sincerely held beliefs.
Your position is as ridiculous as it is dangerous Daniel.
Daniel, the incident in Saudi Arabia in 2002, where the religious police turned girls back into a burning building, and hindered rescue effort, all due to the "sincerely held belief" that having the girls attired in correct Islamic dress was more important than saving their lives, is the sort of behaviour that you are not only endorsing, but are actively promoting with this position.
ReplyDeleteDo you really not see how ridiculous this position of yours is?
This is certainly a relevant example. However, you might do well to see what I actually wrote before you trash my position as “ridiculous.” My position is simply this – that government should accommodate to religious conscience as long as there is no overwhelmingly compelling interest otherwise.
DeleteI am not a masochist. I do not appreciate mud-slinging, character-defaming exchanges, at least not in my own sanctuary. If you continue in this manner, you will compel me to take action against you.
Mann: However, you might do well to see what I actually wrote before you trash my position as “ridiculous.”
ReplyDeleteI read what you wrote Daniel - Please indicate where you think I've misunderstood you.
Mann: My position is simply this – that government should accommodate to religious conscience as long as there is no overwhelmingly compelling interest otherwise.
This position privileges beliefs simply because they are called "religious", which seems to me to be antithetical to a secular government.
Not only that but you are advocating a ridiculous situation. If you can't see how the various scenario's I've already pointed out are quite simply ludicrous, then perhaps some more will illustrate this.
Let's look at some of the previous scenario's, but from a slightly different angle.
- A clerk refuses to do their job and process a marriage certificate because it is for people of the same sex, or an interacial couple, or perhaps it wasn't performed in the right way (a Catholic might object to any marriage not endorsed by the RCC). Now, you've already said that you actually support this person, and would not support firing them for failing to do their job. But what if they're a woman and their superior is a sexist who takes the "women at home" parts of the bible (or koran) seriously? Your position would support them firing ANY women under them simply for being women.
- The scenario of a Muslim refusing to sell alcohol or a Jew refusing to deal with pork. Even though doing these things has been stated as being a part of their jobs, you would argue against them being fired due to an inability to actually do their job. That is silly enough. But what if we look from the point of view of an employer. Perhaps the Jew's employer or boss is an anti-Semite. They Jew could find themselves being fired simply for being a Jew, even if they were carrying out their job. The Muslim could find themselves in a similar situation.
Daniel, can you not see that privileging sectarian beliefs above any and all others, as you have stated you are arguing, is not only against the actual principles your country was founded upon, but would lead to the strange and unwanted situations I've outlined to you?
Havok,
DeleteYou have no problem with our modern Western Secular governmental religion because this is YOUR religion. It has given you the religious monopoly which has justified the banishment of other religions from the public sector.
However, you claim that my “position privileges beliefs simply because they are called "religious", which seems to me to be antithetical to a secular government.” On the contrary, it is your belief that is privileged.
However, I’m more than glad to allow you to call your relativistic, pragmatically-based beliefs “religious,” which they are. You would agree that my absolutist beliefs are religious, but you deny that the opposite – your relativistic and changing beliefs – are so. How convenient!
Daniel, how many times do I have to point out to you that secularism is not a religion?
DeleteYou seem to be unable to grasp that some things are not religious in nature, and in fact should be supported regardless of ones actual religious beliefs. I do not understand why that is.
Mann: You have no problem with our modern Western Secular governmental religion because this is YOUR religion.
I have plenty of problems with my government and yours - the appeals to emotion, the privileging of sectarian beliefs, the imposition of sectarian beleifs upon those who don't hold them.
Also, I do not have a "religion", so your claim here is doubly false.
Mann: It has given you the religious monopoly which has justified the banishment of other religions from the public sector.
Wow Daniel. Have you not seen the Republican presidential candidate race? Have you not seen the numerous appeals to religion which were made in the public sector?
Claiming that your secular government has banished religion seems to be delusional!
Mann: On the contrary, it is your belief that is privileged.
Daniel, just because you are not allowed to impose your beliefs on others, does not mean the beliefs of those others have been priviledged above your own.
No one is asking you to stop believing in God, or not to be a Christian, or what have you. You are free to go on believing whatever you want.
Mann: However, I’m more than glad to allow you to call your relativistic, pragmatically-based beliefs “religious,” which they are.
Daniel, I'm not religious, and it is you who have admitted to being a cultural relativist on this thread, not me.
Mann: You would agree that my absolutist beliefs are religious, but you deny that the opposite – your relativistic and changing beliefs – are so. How convenient!
Well, since you're simply arguing by assertion here, and not actually bothering to justify your claims that secularism is a religion - a claim you've been making for the couple of years I've been commenting on your blog, and a claim which you have never actually justified despite being asked to do so repeatedly.
So you will excuse me for completely ignoring your attempt to tar me with the same brush you use on yourself :-)
And I would imagine that you support legislation such as this bill in Arizona?
ReplyDeleteThis bizarre bill would seemingly allow an emergency room doctor to refuse to treat a person (risking that persons life, and possibly contributing to their death), and face absolutely no disciplinary action if that refusal was based upon a religious belief.
Daniel, do you realise that you should do the job you have agreed to do, and if you find you cannot do the job, for whatever reason, then you should quit.
Or is quitting a job you find yourself ill suited to against your religious beliefs for some reason?
It's baffling!
And some more ridiculousness.
ReplyDeleteIt's apparently a bad thing for a Muslim to aid in non-Muslim celebrations. This means that a Muslim cashier should not sell people their Christmas presents, food, etc.
And you would support this. You would deny the employer the right to fire this cashier for refusing to do their job, and support the right of the Muslim to sit at their station and refuse to do their job.
You don't even seem to consider that the employee resigning is the honest thing for them to do.
As you point out, there are many problems and the same democratic answers will not suffice with Islam on the same block.
DeleteBut Daniel, you don't seem to realise that Christianity is just the same as Islam in this regard - you want to impose your sectarian beliefs on others.
DeleteYou have stated that you would support a Catholic clerk who refused to process perfectly legal, secular divorce papers. I think you also said you would support a Catholic person who refused to process marriage documents if they were not associated with a Catholic marriage (since they may well believe that only the RCC can "properly" marry people).
These are examples of imposing their beliefs upon others, and as such, these should not be tolerated in a secular society.
The correct behaviour from the Catholic person would be to resign from their post, due to their inability to carry out their job.
M POPE HERE I AM NOT GOING TO GET ROUGH AND POLITICAL I AM SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THAT I HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER IN THE LESBIAN LIFE STYLE.HER IDENTITY CHANGED HER CLOTHING CHANGED HER THINKING CHANGED, BUT SHE STILL SAYS SHE LOVES GOD.I CAN TRULY SAY THAT LOOKING AT HER LIFE, SHE IS LIVING THE WAY SHE WANTS, DOING WHATEVER SHE WANTS, WITH NOT HAVING TO ANSWER TO GOD ABOUT IT. AS CHRISTIANS DO WE REALLY BELIEVE WE CAN DICTATE TO GOD HOW WE ARE GOING TO LIVE OUR LIVES, WHETHER HE APPROVES OF IT OR NOT? OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR SAVIOR SHE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR LIFESTYLE, WHEN YOU PUT GOD FIRST, YOU WANT TO DO WHAT PLEASES HIM, NOT WHAT PLEASES YOURSELF. THAT GOES FOR EVERY ONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS AND CONFESSSES HIM TO BE LORD OVER YOUR LIFE.HOMOSEXUALITY,LESBIAN, ALCOHOLISM, DRUG ADDICTION, FORNICATION , ADULTERY, LYING STEALING PORNOGRAPHY ALL TYPE OF ABUSE, MURDER HATRED UNFORGIVENESS JEALOUSY ENVY GOSSIP, BACKBITING STRIFE ETC, BECAUSE THE LIST GOES ON.DON'T GIVE PLACE TO SATAN. RESIST HIM AND HE HAS TO FLEE. IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN OR NOT--- IN ANY OF THESE SINS, YOU ARE SEPARATED FROM GOD BECAUSE GOE HATES SIN, BUT LOVES AND FORGIVES THE REPENTED MAN, WOMAN, BOY OR GIRL.COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND BE CLEAN. I AM PRAYING FOR ALL WHO CAN'T OR WON'T PRAY, AND PRAY FOR ME,THAT MY HEART WILL NOT BE TAINTED DAY BY DAY. MPOPE
ReplyDelete