Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I'd like to hear your rationale on this point. The founding fathers of the Republic felt it was absolutely appropriate to invoke the name of our God and to rewrite Biblical commandments into our constitution and body of legislation, and today you are saying it is a "bad idea" and even an "unbiblical one."
Perhaps we are speaking of different things here.
To be strictly honest, I also think it is a bad idea "to invoke God's will as the sole rationale to pass laws in a human government." God's will for some is Sharia law. God's will for some is oppressive mandates for women and mandatory prayers for all, 5 times per day. God's will for some must be enforced by Taliban-like guards. So I would never recommend God's will to be the determining factor of any piece of legislation.
Ideas?
|
Regarding the "unbiblical" comment, I can offer a few things - but I don't offer them as a definitive interpretation or clear prohibition on invoking God as a basis for passing a particular law.
First is the point I mention: Jesus' pattern (yes, ironically, I am making a "WWJD" argument
). Yes, He had clear moral guides (God's law). So, yes, He absolutely would abhor the sin He saw in society. But his response to that was not to get the Romans to pass a law prohibiting such things. Instead, he sought to minister to those enmeshed in sin - not by condemnation, but by love (and no, not "tough love").
That said, just because Jesus didn't get into politics doesn't mean its prohibited. But it might suggest that perhaps we don't use his name when we do. When He lived on earth, He made the choice not to get involved. Perhaps we should respect that choice.
Second is the nature of God's sovereignty. His wisdom over human history and human societies is so unfathomable. Indeed, it is at times befuddling. Some utter tragedies we see we can't understand that He allows. Yet, people of faith must trust that it is all part of His arrangement. Sometimes, God
desires human authorities to do the WRONG THING. Didn't He harden pharoah's heart?
His plan is so beyond our comprehension at times. To Peter, he saw that Jesus was the Messiah. In Peter's small (but very logical) thinking, that meant Christ should live to establish the kingdom. And yet, he didn't realize that Christ had to suffer at the hand of human authorities, indeed, He had to be killed, for God's plan.
So, who are we to say that God doesn't want/need to allow American to turn into Sodom?
As a citizen, I certainly don't want Sodom for my country. But
as a Christian I have no idea what God wants and/or must allow to happen.
Again, these points are certainly not "proof" that it's wrong to invoke Christian faith as a basis for an argument. But I personally think they're compelling.
Now, regarding the Founding Fathers:
I don't want to get into a debate about the extent to which the founding documents are based in the Christian faith. Frankly, because I think its irrelevant to the point I am making:
Even if you are right about the Founders rewriting the commandments into the Constitution, I agree with the Constitution and consent to be governed under it because of non-faith-based reasons. For each part of the Constitution, one can make a reasoned secular argument for why it is a good or bad law. Regardless of whether the people governed by it are of the same faith, they can nonetheless debate its terms from a common set of premises. The rationale for each and every provision can be explained in terms of how society is for the better because of it. They can be defended or argued with on entirely
civic terms, regardless of one's faith.
Separation of powers; checks and balances; individual liberties; enumerated powers; bicameral legislature; independant judiciary; equal protection of the laws; due process of laws. Each and every one can be justified without having to resort to faith-based arguments. Thus, in a diverse democracy, we can have deliberation over these things from common appeal to reason and shared premises.
Consider, in contrast, if there was an Amendment to the Constitution to define marriage according to the Biblical definition. Let's assume for the moment (since you already indicated this to be the case) that there is no secular argument for this. The only basis for inserting this Amendment, then, is that God considers homosexuality a sin and He defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
For those who do not believe in God or do not believe in the Judeo-Chrisitian God, they cannot engage with us in reasoned debate. If a homosexual asks why she can't get married to her long-term partner, the only response is "God didn't include your relationship in the definition of marriage." To which she might reply, "But I don't believe that God exists. That's a belief that the 1st Amendment protects.. So I can't have the State-benefits you get out of your relationship because a God I don't believe in says so?"
That's a very problematic conversation in a democracy, even if its Founders hailed from faith-based backgrounds.
Now, let's get rid of our assumption and say there IS a facial secular argument for a Marriage Amendment. I could argue, for example:
Quote:
I fear America becoming too loose regarding sexuality. This creates an atmosphere over time and, even if unintended, can change our culture. Many years ago, it was illegal to get divorced. Little by little, these laws went away. What happened? Divorce rates skyrocketed. Without realizing it, we allowed a culture to creep in that devalues mutual commitment. The "default" is not to work through difficult relationships and only separate as the exception. Now, the "default" is to cut and run at the first sign of trouble. And now we have generations of kids being raised in single family homes. There is research that shows the success rates of kids raised in two-parent homes far exceed those who aren't. In America, we should have laws that maximize the success rates of our children.
This gradual break-down of core values could happen in the same manner if non-mainstream sexual preferences are not only permitted, but state sanctioned. We aim to maintain stability in families and relationships.
|
This is a (truncated) secular argument for defining marriage in a particular way. That homosexual couple can now engage with my argument. They can ask for data to back up my "slippery slope" argument and I can offer rebuttle to their argument.
Leaving God out of political arguments clears the way for a shared premise:
will this law benefit or harm society in concrete ways?
People of all backgrounds can debate that question.