A branch of the Coalition? No coalition? debate. Who would have ever thought! :)
Hmm... questions: Should gay marriage be allowed? Do we have secular governments? Should churches have to marry gay people? Should government officials have to marry gay people even if it goes against their conscience? How should marriage be recorded by our government? What priviledges should married people receive from the government, if any? And... why is this debate happening now in North America?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Chris wrote:
In particular: What do you mean by saying that you are "for" gay marriage?
And why do you think that it is "reasonable that public officials should have to dispence public functions" (like gay marriage) even if these functions are contrary to their consciences and contrary to the will of God.
Have we never talked about this before? Odd!
Ok. I believe that while Canada was founded by Anglican and Catholic countries, we have a secular government. The government does not persecute other religions and allows them the same rights and freedoms the government gives to all Christian churches. They gave the Mennonites free land because they were good at flood control. That to me says that any ties our government originally had to the founding churches has been lost or at least mediated. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope do not hold any national significance to us (at least outside of Quebec) so we are not like, for example, Poland with its strong allegiance to Rome. Yes, our laws are not based on Sharia laws (although it has been allowed in some cases where is coincided nicely with Canadian law.) Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian thought because of our founding nations but more so, our laws are based on the idea of innocence until proven guilty- which is a development out of Judeo-Christian thought, but is more an idea of the Enlightenment.
So given that I feel that our government is secular, I feel that it must see each and every person as equal and deserving of equal rights. Being gay is not a crime in Canada and so I think that gay people should be accorded the same rights as straight people.
They should be allowed to make medical decisions for their long time partner and to visit them in the hospital. They should have to separate their assets when separating after a long term relationship just as straight common law couples have to. They should be taxed accordingly (although in Canada it doesn't make any difference if you have the paperwork of marriage or not.)
I do think being gay is wrong and goes against the Bible.
I am all for clergy not being required to marry whomever they do not wish to marry, straight or gay. That falls under religious rights and isn't particularly an issue here in Canada.
I am all for officials of the secular government having to dispense laws and services that the government deems lawful. That is their job. They didn't take the job saying "I'll only do what I'm paid to do as long as I agree with it" but yet stay on the job. When you don't agree with your employers basic principles to the degree where you refuse to do your job, perhaps it is time to find a new job. Just as, Chris, you working at the agency, you have decided to uphold their ideas in terms of care of the residents. If you were to start sounding off that they were totally wrong and that you were actively working against their ideas, they would have the right to terminate your employment. You can disagree privately, but in working there you have agreed to follow their rules.
For me, gay marriage isn't an issue of morality at all. It's simply a matter of governmental rights. I would like to see the civil aspect of marriage totally removed from churches. I'm in favour of the European idea where you go and have a civil ceremony at some point before a civil servant and then you can go have your church or mosque or whatever service afterwards. Completely separate. You get married in the eyes of the law and then you get married in the eyes of your god. I have no desire to force non-Christians to follow Christian morality. That didn't work well in missions and I don't think it works well in North American society.
So you think that being gay is wrong, but since the government of Canada is "secular" they should accept the definition of marriage as including gays or lesbians.
I agree that the government of Canada is best described as "secular" or "humanist" (not Christian). I do not think, however, that this is a good thing, or something that we should just accept and be complacent about.
I do not think that we will ever have a perfectly "Christian nation" until Jesus appears again. But Jesus is ruler over all nations, even now (even as the nations are in ongoing mutiny against Him). And I do believe that we ought to seek to make our nations as "Christian" (obedient to His will) as possible.
To affirm "gay marriage" is to affirm something that is contrary to God's will. The government exists to punish evil and reward good, not to reward (or affirm) what is evil. To define what is evil as acceptable or good will have repercussions for generations.
I believe that the government exists as God's servants, even if they do not recognize this truth. I thus, do not think that defining a government as "secular" is justification for saying that a government can affirm something that is contrary to God's will. Governments are still accountable to God, no matter if they deny God's authority or existence (by defining themselves as "secular").
I would quit my job (which is supported by government money) if they forced me to do something evil (like supporting the men to go to strip clubs, which some agencies might do). But I would hope and seek that the rules would be changed so that I don't have 2 options (do evil or quit).
Why should we accept a policy (like forcing/expecting Christian government workers to perform gay marriage) if this policy results in only 2 options (sin or quit)?
Clarification: I used the word "accept" once in each of my previous posts, meaning "affirm or approve".
I mean we should not "affirm" or "approve" of government policy that is contrary to God's will. Hope that helps make my thought clearer.
Yes, the does help make your comments much clearer. I'm still working on formulating my response. :)
"I think that gay people should be accorded the same rights as straight people."
As usual I have an article that addresses that statement :-).
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/youdonthavearighttomarry.html
HM’s article is very thought-provoking. It points out some of the complications of “secular government” trying to define marriage only on the philosophical basis of “human rights.”
I agree that “human rights” is not an adequate philosophical basis for defining any particular form of marriage. The man-centered concept of “human rights” can only say that “I have the right to do whatever I want to do (like live with someone and have sex with them and call that “being married”) as long as that does not violate the rights of others.” But according to this rule, 5 people can all agree to live together and have sex with one another and raise children in this social unit, and call that marriage and family. If the government only looks to “human rights” to define marriage they must affirm that a 5 person unit is equally defined as a marriage (or whatever other combination you can imagine). Children of any age must also be recognized as legally married, according to human rights, as long as they are not unwilling partners.
So then, the government has 4 options I can see for choosing to legally recognize marriage:
1. They can recognize a definition of marriage based on a God-given definition of marriage (i.e.: not just based on human rights, but based on some form of divine revelation, such as Gen.2, etc.) and perhaps add that recognition of divine revelation to their constitution.
2. Or they can not recognize any marriage at all, and view all people only as individuals.
3. Or they can decide upon a definition of marriage according to any particular vocal group (like the so-called gay-rights activists (that’s what they call themselves even though human rights actually affirms far more than just 2-couple homosexual unions), or a Muslim group (some say up to 5 wives), or a Christian group (arguing on the basis of a particular tradition), etc.)
4. Or they can decide upon a definition of marriage based purely on popular/majority opinion of what “marriage” should be defined as.
(This is what California did recently, gays are very upset; problem: majority opinion can be constantly changing from generation to generation in different places).
Hello again!
I’ve been waiting since Christmas/arm craziness for my brain to grind back into gear in hopes that I would understand your responses a bit better. However, no luck, so I’m just going to ask more questions in hopes of better understanding! By the way- obviously I love to pick apart arguments, so please feel free to pick, pick, and pick away at my arguments. It helps me see the holes in my beliefs and figure them out better.
Chris:
Why is it that we need to make our nation “Christian”? Why would something secular have to conform to God’s will? Someday every knee shall bow but that is not our job to force them into submission. In fact, many of the atrocities committed by Christians over the ages have come from that idea. Is it not Christ’s job on his return to rule the world? Where does the Bible say that it is our job? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Dominionist or Zionist theology and then we are at an impasse. If we require our government to follow Biblical teaching, then how can we possibly say to Muslim nations that Sharia law is inhumane?
Do you have to approve of everything the government does? I’m not sure how that could work. I don’t agree with certain tax policies or health care policies, but I still have to abide by them, and expect Canada Revenue and my doctor to abide by them.
Thank you for the clarification- I didn’t want to see you out there rioting! Or moving!
HM’s editorial:
The idea that marriage is not for love but for procreation of children- what about a man and a woman who cannot have children? How does this rationale deal with bigamy? I’m not saying that I think marriage is only for love, but this definition seems incomplete.
“But the "right to marriage" only exists if their religion agrees that they can be married and someone is willing to wed them.” So if a church agrees, then gay marriage is legal? (There are several churches in Canada who have come out in support of gay marriage. ) How would this work with the government giving out marriage licences? Would they only give them out depending on where you were getting married? How would they police that? And the government itself conducts marriage services, so where would the defining measure be? In fact, in Canada the debate outside of religious circles is ONLY in terms of marriages the government will conduct. I don’t think I’m understanding this right at all!
“To define marriage "legally" means that churches would be required by law to wed anyone that came before them that met the legal criteria or be in violation of the law, regardless of the principles of the religion's core beliefs.” Untrue, at least in Canada.
“If marriage is a "right" in the same essence as equal creation, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness then it is something that you are guaranteed to have.” I have the right to a speedy trial but I hope to never have to use that right! :)
Again, thanks for putting up with the resident "Christian lefty/socialist!" I'm eager to hear what you have to say! (although I did take almost a month so I don't get to be too eager!)
Great to hear from you Kim,
hope you keep feeling better and better.
I realize that lots of confusion can come from saying that Christians should strive to make the government as “Christian” as possible. (I knew you would get a kick out of that one : ). But what I meant is that Christians must seek to promote public policies that are (as I said) as consistent as possible with God’s will (not promote public policies that are inconsistent with what they know about God's will).
I’m not going to whine and complain about the policies that are inconsistent, but if I was a public servant and I needed to vote on a given issue (like homosexual marriage) I would need to follow my conscience and only affirm the public policies that I believed were best (i.e. consistent with God’s will).
To say that the church should discourage homosexuality but that the government should encourage it (by giving it official status with special rights and benefits) does not make sense to me. That’s like saying that the church should discourage lust, but the government should encourage it (perhaps by granting official status to people who are famous for sleeping around :); the church should discourage alcohol addiction, but the government should encourage it (give alcoholics extra tax-breaks!), etc.
(Notice I’m not saying that the government should completely ban alcohol, or interrogate and punish all lustful people (!) or keep all homosexuals from committing their sin. Biblically, the government would be over-extending its God-ordained role if it were to attempt to force people into such conformity to God’s will. The government cannot and must not punish secret sins of the heart (only God can do that). I say this not because I believe in an idea of "secular government," but on the basis of Scripture, which limits human and governmental authority/responsibility. But the government should not encourage secret or public/social sins either.
So all I’m saying is that Christians should govern in a Christian way (not as if they were ‘secular servants’ who simply had to do whatever was popular in a given generation, irrespective of God). The government is the servant of God, even though it does not realize it. But Christians should realize this, and vote/govern accordingly.
And I hardly think that we Christians (or the government) are “forcing” homosexuals into submission to the Lordship of Christ by failing to vote "yes" to give official status to “gay marriages” :-)
hope that clarifies some things,
You ask: “If we require our government to follow Biblical teaching, then how can we possibly say to Muslim nations that Sharia law is inhumane?”
Quick Answer: Sharia Law is not based on the Bible. If there are any aspects of it that are inconsistent with Scripture, its wrong.
And I ask: On what basis can secular people/government condemn Sharia law? If the majority of people want Sharia law, should not a secular democracy affirm this desire of the people?
Maybe this discussion could have its own post, but it would require some actual details about what Sharia law actually is/says. What's inhumane about it, etc. I would expect that its not all completely inhumane.
You ask: "Why would something secular have to conform to God’s will?"
My answer: I do not believe that anything really is "secular" in the sense that it is not under the authority of God.
The government can call itself secular and choose not to acknowledge God, and do whatever it sees fit in its own eyes, but God will still judge it according to His will. Do you agree?
Let’s see…to answer your questions specifically directed at me… :-D
“The idea that marriage is not for love but for procreation of children- what about a man and a woman who cannot have children?” This argument was not stated in the article. He did not say marriage was for procreation of children, but for ‘forming families AND raising children.’ A family can be just a husband and a wife. Regardless, this was only one small statement in a much larger editorial so I will go on to your other questions…
“How does this rationale deal with bigamy?” I am confused by this question. If you read the article, it should be very clear that the author of the article was equating bigamy to homosexuality as not part of the religious institution of marriage.
”’But the ‘right to marriage’ only exists if their religion agrees that they can be married and someone is willing to wed them.’ So if a church agrees, then gay marriage is legal? (There are several churches in Canada who have come out in support of gay marriage.) How would this work with the government giving out marriage licenses? Would they only give them out depending on where you were getting married? How would they police that? And the government itself conducts marriage services, so where would the defining measure be? In fact, in Canada the debate outside of religious circles is ONLY in terms of marriages the government will conduct. I don’t think I’m understanding this right at all!”
Again, I am confused by your question here. The article is clearly stating that NO ONE has a “right” to get married—gay, straight, polygamous, etc. For example, I know a couple who wanted to get married at a beautiful church downtown, but because they were not a member of that church and had no intention of becoming a member, the pastor refused to marry them. They were heterosexual, yet they had to find someone else who would marry them. If they had the “right” to marry, any pastor, no matter their personal viewpoints would have to marry them…however their “right” would then be infringing on the pastor’s right to religious freedom. The author of this article is simply stating that it is not the government’s job to define marriage one way or another. He even stated, “It means that homosexuals don't have a claim to marriage unless they belong to a church that is going to accept and practice such a union.” Their marriage would be recognized in that particular church, but to force people who’s religion believes that a marriage should be between one man and one woman to accept a homosexual marriage (or a polygamous one or a bestiality one for that matter), would infringe on our freedom of religion. They are welcome to their own personal beliefs, that is their right, but they cannot make everyone else believe the same way…because marriage is not a right.
”’If marriage is a ‘right’ in the same essence as equal creation, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness then it is something that you are guaranteed to have.’ I have the right to a speedy trial but I hope to never have to use that right! :)” That is comparing apples and oranges. You have the right to a speedy trial if you ever needed to use it. What the author is clearly stating is that if this were a right, no one who wanted to be married would be single. It is their right to be married…whether the other person wanted to marry them or not would be inconsequential because it is their right. To use your example, if you were accused of a crime and the judge didn’t like you, you would still be allowed a speedy trial because it is your right. However, if it wasn’t your right, you could have to sit in jail for years waiting for your trial. If everyone had the right to marry, then Joe Bob next door could up and marry me despite the fact that I am already married, because he has a right to be married to the person of his choosing. Frankly, by taking marriage, which is a religious institution, and put it under government control, you are taking away our right to liberty.
HM-
Ok, I think I know where the author and you are coming from now. I think you're saying that the government should not be granting marriage licences at all or recognizing people that are married as being in any kind of commitment that concerns the government. Therefore hetero and hommo sexual, or even bigamist couples could get married or whatever they wanted to call it if they could find an institution that would marry them. Is that correct or am I still confused?
Today isn't a good brain day so I could very well be reading this completely wrong!
Chris,
"I’m not going to whine and complain about the policies that are inconsistent, but if I was a public servant and I needed to vote on a given issue (like homosexual marriage) I would need to follow my conscience and only affirm the public policies that I believed were best (i.e. consistent with God’s will)." You hit a difficult point for me with this. It is much more complicated for those in government who have to either decide to seperate their faith from their political decisions or not. PM Martin had exactly this problem when all this happened in Canada. The Supreme Court said Canada had no reason to not grant marriage licences since being homosexual was not illigal (as bigamy is- which ties into your third paragraph about lust and drunkeness.) Martin decided that he needed to go with the moress of a secular government instead of his faith as the head of government and the representative of a group of people. He was not voting for himself, but for his consituancy and following the law of the land. (Perhaps this will start a big debate on the Supreme Court, but I'm not going to go there now!)
I'm pretty sure that my stance goes along with that, but again confusing and something I need to think about.
I didn't understand you "Notice-either" paragraph at all. My brain is too foggy to figure that out! Could you please clarify further?
I'm not sure that any Christians would get voted into office since the majority of our population is non-Christian, or at least non-church-going. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not vote according to their own conscience beyond the platfrom they ran.
I don't know, but I would think that homosexual couples would feel that they were being made into second class citizens by the viewpoints of the religious.
I would agree that some parts of Sharia law are wrong, however many Muslims would disagree with me. (Certianly there are some aspects that are fine and in accordance with what the international community would consider decent and just. Those parts don't concern me in this discussion.) I would rather say that I think that any law system that doesn't allow people the idea of innocence, of a measured penalty, the right to life, the choice of their own religion etc etc to be wrong. Many "Christian" governments do not allow this either. For example, what would happen if the LRA came into power in Uganda? I think we are much better off to support the notion of secular governments that uphold international stadards of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, we in the west seem to like and promote secular governments everywhere else in the world but at home.
Kimberly...haven't you figured me out by now??? I am for as little government involvement in my life as possible! :-D So yes, I think that the government should just stay out of it. However, if I vote came and I had to vote, would I vote for a marriage amendment if offered? YES--if only to keep the opposite amendment from being put on there.
But basically I put that whole article on here in response to your comment, "so I think that gay people should be accorded the same rights as straight people." I have heard that said by SOOOO many people and back in my college days I leaned that way myself because that was what I heard constantly (liberal college!).
I agree that their humanity, how they are treated, etc. should be equal because we are all sinners facing a holy, perfect, just God, but the fact of the matter, like the article clearly states, marriage is not a "right", so that is not a good argument for them to use...
Ah, ok. Then it is the term "right." Ok, that makes more sense. I should have been more careful! :) What would be a better word? Privledge? Ability? Lawful?
So you would be fine with hommosexual marriages as long as it wasn't the government that was allowing them because you don't think the government should be involved in marriages at all?
If the answer is yes, what about bigamist marriages and the oft toted prospect of a man marrying his dog?
"So you would be fine with hommosexual marriages as long as it wasn't the government that was allowing them because you don't think the government should be involved in marriages at all?"
No, I would not be fine with that again because marriage is a religious institution set up by GOD, not man-made religions. I would be fine with their church recognizing their marriage, just like I am okay if some church practices snake charming, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it as Biblically correct. I personally would not recognize their marriage any more than I would recognize the marriage between a man and his dog :-).
Matthew 19:4-6 states CLEARLY: "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'”
If it is not an institution God joined together, then they are NOT one flesh, they are simply two men or two women living together.
Ok, not "fine" as in you are happy about it, but "fine" in that they would not be breaking any law and that their church or whatever would be allowed to marry them.
So then what about bigamy? Should that be lawful under the system you are advocating?
This is so interesting! You are the first person I know to think about things this way! (at least that I know of!) Thank you!
Okay...to answer all other questions related to marriage...I am only fine with the Biblical definition of marriage from Matthew 19:4-6. The Bible does not contradict itself and this definition is VERY clear.
You could argue that polygamy was in the Bible, but it was not something God blessed or ordained. There was all sorts of things in the Bible that God did not tell the Israelites to do that they did (such as Lot sleeping with his daughters). And actually polygamy is a good example of where something was acceptable to the culture, but was not acceptable to God. Every time the Israelites deviated from God's plan there were problems. Look at Ishmael and Isaac for just one example.
The Bible says "two shall become one" not 3,4,5,6 shall become one.
If God had wanted us to marry the same gender or multiple people, he wouldn't have created Adam and Eve. He would have created "Adam and Steve" or Adam and Eve and Jane and Ruth...
Again, if their church wants to recognize it, that is their business, but I didn't say it should be legal. That would be a religious ceremony recognized within their church, but I personally would not recognize it as a marriage.
Kim, you mention: “It is much more complicated for those in government who have to either decide to separate their faith from their political decisions or not.”
My response: I do not believe Christians should ever separate their faith from their political policies, (or from any other sphere of life). “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col.3:16).
If I were a politician, all my policy making should be “in the name of Jesus” – consistent with His will for all people. If a Christian politician gets elected out, so be it. This does not mean that Christian politicians should quit if the rest of the government is not on side with them, but it means that Christian politicians should not simply base their decisions on what is popular and what caters to special interest groups.
This does not destroy democracy. Democracy works if people are informed, and care, and vote for the person who they think will represent them best; and if politicians are upfront about what they believe and actually do what they think is best (not just what they think their people want). If we are simply led by the masses of popular opinion (which we are, more and more) we are a drifting culture/nation in grave danger. We need the government to be based on something other than mere popular opinion! If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch.
You raise the concern that if Christian politicians took firm stands in accordance with their beliefs, then no Christians would be voted in politically? Answer: The common grace of God – even the unbelievers are moved by God to agree about much truth and goodness. Thus, I believe that a fully Christian policy maker would not be voted out instantly, always. Apart from the 2 hot button issues (abortion, homosexuality) most Christian ideals are still respected in our culture (even if people don’t follow what they would admit is the ideal). To care for those who are weak and to be responsible and wise with money (etc.) are Christian ideals, based on Scripture – and these things are still affirmed as ideals by most unbelievers. Christian politicians don’t need to act contrary to their faith, just to stay elected and to do what others want them to do.
Regarding HM’s article, I agree that the secular philosophy of “human rights” is not a solid basis for defining marriage. But I do not agree that the government should simply fail to recognize any definition of marriage at all. I think that, for the sake of order in society, it is better for the government to recognize some definition of marriage (as long as it is not a perverted definition of marriage), for the sake of protecting those marriages/families who do not belong to any church.
I believe that an unbelieving man and woman are still married in the eyes of God, and that God’s common grace is still active in the formation of such a marriage. It is not a bad thing for the government to affirm those things that result from the common grace of God. Thus, if the government affirms a definition of marriage as “one man and one woman,” and gives legal protection to such marriages, I would not say that the government is overstepping its authority.
Would you disagree?
Clarification about what I mean by "common grace":
The gracious working of God that God does both in and through unbelievers that does not result in final salvation.
All non-sinful things that unbelievers enjoy (like marriage, family, food, sunshine) are a result of God's grace (common, meaning universal... not limited to those who are believers).
Does that clarify something that you were wondering, Kim?
Thanks Chris. (I asked him about it the other day at Bible Study.)
I wasn't sure the parameters were on your definition of common grace as we went to different Bible Schools.
HM: "Again, if their church wants to recognize it, that is their business, but I didn't say it should be legal." Permissable but not legal? How would this work? Isn't it like a store being allowed to sell marijuana but it being illigal to buy it?
And how does this idea work into the idea of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" which seems (to me at least) to be a focal point of the anti-gay-marriage movement?
I've been thinking a lot (I've been sick) about the idea of an elected member voted seperate from their faith and I remembered something which may make things a bit more clear. Paul Martin (HM: former Prime Miniter) was Catholic. I remember him mentioning this when the whole gay marriage thing came up. What I didn't think about until a few days ago were the differences between the Catholic church and most Protestant churches. I am VERY glad that when we happened to elect a Catholic PM, we did not lose the right to birth control. None of our schools changed (schools are part of government) and our foreign policy was consistant to what it had been. Most people probably didn't even know he was Catholic. Is Harper a Chrisitian? I don't know. I don't care! (Although if he was going to get all pro-Israel because of it, then he should have told us during the election!) The faith of our PM, and even the majority of Parliment doesn't matter to most Canadians because it doesn't play a role. I could just as happily vote in a Muslim representative knowing that there wouldn't be any change in the basic tennents that make up Canadian thought, policy and politics. Not that we can't have change, but in my mind, it should be campaigned on or judged and not something that pops up because of the faith of a representative.
In that way, we can encourage countries that do ascribe to a certain faith to grant the same rights to people in their country of all faiths. No more jailing Christians in China! No more jailing converts in the Muslim world! Allow each person to be an equal person before the law regarless of their faith system. Would I rather have a secular government that sometimes makes decisions contrary to my faith or would I rather have a government that made my faith second class or even illigal? Secular please!
"Permissible but not legal? How would this work? Isn't it like a store being allowed to sell marijuana but it being illegal to buy it?" What I mean is that it would be recognized by that religion--not that it would be legal. Within that religion they would be married...that's their business. For example, My foster kids' birth mom has a new "husband" almost every month--none of these have been "legal", they were all done at some sort of rave or another, but in her circles they were "married", but legally they were not.
I completely agree with Chris: "It is not a bad thing for the government to affirm those things that result from the common grace of God. Thus, if the government affirms a definition of marriage as “one man and one woman,” and gives legal protection to such marriages, I would not say that the government is overstepping its authority." Government was instituted by God to protect God's law. When we pervert God's law, that is when we have problems.
About your argument on the faith of a prime minister versus their public policy...just because their religion believes a certain way doesn't mean that they believe that. However, the point is, that a person who holds strongly to a particular faith, should run on policies that match that faith: i.e. pro-marriage amendment, anti-abortion, etc. It will be part of their platform. So HOPEFULLY people know what they are getting into before they vote. And honestly, I would respect a leader much more if he stuck to what he believed instead of trying to flip flop to "please the masses"--even if I disagreed with him.
Obviously if the Catholic PM felt strongly about no birth control, he would have ran on that platform and lost. The point is, if people are upfront about their beliefs are Biblical, it is not wrong for them to stick with that when they make policies. They have not lied about their beliefs and they have honored God by sticking to them. If they get voted in, then that means that their constituents agree with at least most of what they believe and thus they are a good representative of their constituents. You can't play a guessing game about how you THINK everyone wants you to vote because everyone has widely different opinions. You tell people upfront what you believe and how you will vote and they decide if you match them. Does that make sense?
You can't please everyone 100% of the time and a person who is always trying to please everyone does not make a good leader. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions. If over 50% of voters voted someone into office then it is safe to assume, unless they get a huge backlash, that over 50% of the population agree with them.
If you go along with whatever the newest political fad of the moment is, then you might as well not have anyone in office at all--just let Hollywood tell everyone what to do. This is strongly evidenced by the whole "Inconvenient Truth" fad. Hollywood jumped on board and all of a sudden, global warming was the biggest deal in the world and policies were changing left and right to adjust for global warming--despite the scientific evidence showing that it was just a normal cyclical climatic shift (we are now shifting into a global cooling shift for a couple of decades and just like back in the 70's people will soon be saying we're headed for another ice age). I'm all for protecting our environment because God wants us to be good stewards to what we have been given, but many more important issues were put on hold because Hollywood thought global warming was more important than anything else. Sorry, I'm feeling very cynical today and I don't have much faith in the common sense of my fellow citizens who seem to be led around by the nose by the media and a relativist belief that there are no absolute truths.
I must say that it is very nice of you to have such a generous view of Fundamentalist Muslims. "Modern" Muslims, those that don't hold strongly to the traditional views, are not dangerous. However if you study fundamental Islam, you will find that it is part of their core beliefs that ALL Christians and Jews should be killed...not just killed, beheaded so that we cannot go to their heaven. Sadly, the countries where the leaders are strong in their faith will not remove the death penalty for converts simply because we are "more understanding" over here. You really have to understand that they view things way differently over in that part of the world than you and I do. You should check out the Voice of the Martyrs website sometime.
Post a Comment