M
Monkey487
Guest
[FONT="] [FONT="]Do Not Miss The Forest For The Trees. A Response to the Article [/FONT][FONT="]“Critics of gay marriage often base their arguments on the certainty of their religious convictions. But societies without doubt are dangerous places, argues Adam Gopnik.” [/FONT][FONT="]by Mark Jennings. Part 5 of 5[/FONT]
We cannot simply say that ‘all is permissible.’ We know this. Based upon the reality of the need for some set of rules for society to abide by, people of faith ought to engage in the process of politics so that those who introduce various ‘slippery slopes’ (often a form of bribery) to ease our angst against the moral law (which often works against our desires) do not have a monopoly on what rules are made and enforced. As I have argued elsewhere, those who purport to be so permissive and gentle are really tyrants who seek to rule just about everything to create their own heaven on earth (as evidenced by the massive growth and the increasing chaos and corruption of the bureaucratic state.) We even justify (what almost amounts to) cannibalism in the case the evil state-sponsored industry of abortion. (How dare I say that!?) Our leaders hunger for more and more power every day while throwing us a few bones to placate our collective greed and lust. This keeps all of us deeply divided because the law itself keeps pounding in the wedge between God’s law and man’s law thus dividing our loyalties. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The war is real. Don’t believe this drivel about certainty itself being the origin of tyranny. Lust for power is where tyranny grows and universal doubt amongst the common folk about what is right and lawful gives aid and comfort to the development of this power which continually works against us in innumerable ways. God’s rules are relatively few compared to what our human saviors are continually offering us by the thousands. As I am certain that I exist, that murder is evil, and that both mothers and fathers are needed to raise children to continue society, so too I am certain that the origin of the universe is not a random accident in some persistent process that we so happened to have evolved to become its god. Submission to God leaves power where it belongs—with God. In this way, without trying to institute a theocracy, I can participate in the political process as an individual who believes in the reality of Natural Law—this, contrary to the swill thrown our way, would severely limit the power of government since we would only enforcing laws against assault, murder, theft, and for the honoring of contracts without creating a bloated system of legalized theft and trading favors like we have today. Homosexuals, transsexuals (and whatever of the other numerous categories there are) are always human beings under the Law and so still have the protections of the Law just like everybody else. That means nobody has the right to harm you for your desires but that harm does not include a general failure of people recognizing and giving approval to the sanctity of your desires. But this one particular issue is not really the root of the matter is it? [/FONT]
[FONT="]Marriage precedes the institution of the state yet the state has a legitimate interest in that there is often children and property involved in these relationships. Therefore I see the relation of my own marriage with my wife before the state and as a promise made before God as two different things—one is marriage, the other is a legal contract with the state (a civil union—which is what the LGBT lobby used to say was all they wanted. I would have been fine with that.) What we have today is a false equivocation…. What the (briefly) celebrating factions are saying is that ‘we’ declare that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are the same thing under the ‘law’ which effectively unites church and state under one law. (Well maybe I shouldn’t complain so much because the state religion has been openly sponsoring murder by the millions for over 40 years now. We religious folk should just shut up now—it is the law of the land. Rush is right—abortion is indeed the sacrament of liberalism.) We have no option but to honor the arrangement as marriage or face the wrath of the state. Your conscience be damned because discriminating against sexual preference has been ruled to be the same kind of thing as discriminating against a race. Why? Because powerful men say so. Never mind that one is defined by choice and the other by a superficial difference in the skin color you were born with. Never mind that one cannot make a natural law argument for discrimination based on skin color but you can make a strong natural law case against homosexual coupling. This is very sneaky but power is the ultimate goal. The LGBT lobby couldn’t stop at civil unions because this issue is yet another screen; this is an all out assault on the origin of law itself that effectively puts man as its master. The fact that homosexuals and transsexuals are both thrown into the same lobby is philosophically contradictory to the core. (But that doesn’t matter either.) Homosexuals typically argue that they were born with these desires so they are being what they were born to be while transsexuals argue that it doesn’t matter if they were born with an XX or an XY they feel like they are the other sex and want to choose to be the other sex and have the rest of us accept it and pay for the hormones and cosmetic surgery. (But again maybe I shouldn’t complain so much because I’ve read articles recently which argue that without Planned Parenthood all the old women will not be able to get breast exams and all the young girls will be getting chlamydia. That’s how liberal crusaders fight—all or nothing. Tolerant?) Careful ethical consideration and even the philosophical coherence, consistency, and integrity of your argument no longer matters; just bludgeon all opposition until it ‘works’ for everybody. And so we go skipping merrily towards the new heaven on earth as the state religion becomes firmly established with some charismatic tyrant at its head whom everyone considers permissive and benevolent. All Hail [fill in the blank.][/FONT]
[FONT="]Gopnik’s comments on pluralistic societies are misleading at best. Again we have a false equivocation between tolerance and pluralism. True pluralism would mean for instance that western and sharia law could co-exist in the same realm. We could tolerate pockets of sharia law within our borders but that would mean discarding our values (oh, let’s say, women’s rights) out the window in those areas. How committed are we to pluralism really? Indeed, Gopnik doesn’t really believe in pluralism because he is at the very base arguing for state supremacy to which you must submit. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Tolerance is not doubt as has been suggested. Tolerance is what God obviously does as evidenced by the fact that even though He has the power to make everyone behave He doesn’t use that power. This obvious fact has led to Christian dominated societies being the most tolerant and free contrary to Gopnik’s claim that the freest societies are those in which everyone doubts (more accurately doesn’t care about) what is right and so does whatever they see fit. Without the Law as a guide, human ‘law’ fractures as the various factions vie with each other for the biggest pieces of the pie. This is tribalism and is exactly what has happened to the American political process. Our ‘pluralistic’ society has us at each other’s throats. Slippery slope anyone? [/FONT]
[FONT="]Compared to men, the Creator God is infinitely merciful. This is tolerance. Our Father has no obligation to accept the sins of men but rather endured His own Son’s murder at the hands of rebellious men to provide a way out of the jaws of what the universe ultimately brings to us all. This way both sides of coin (and thus the coin itself) still have foundation. The order of the universe remains as the call to freedom has been issued. Tolerant societies do not punish people in order to reform them as our new enlightened masters are doing through lawsuits, fines, judicial censure and gag-orders. Tolerant societies act only to protect people from other people; jail is only justified for those who are a threat to society. It (and hell) is used to protect other people from the criminal. If keep your sin to yourself then it is very likely you will be left alone in a tolerant society that has no desire to ‘reform’ you against your will. God, contrary to the teachings of John Calvin, has no interest in reforming you against your will. Harming others and their property will be that which provokes a tolerant society to act against you because all people have God-given rights. This is the balance that we should strive to achieve. [/FONT]
[FONT="]You can believe and say any fool thing you want to but do not act to force anyone to submit to you and your will no matter how enlightened you think you are. Arguing your case is fine—force is not. Government power and scope would remain very limited in a tolerant society which really was interested in enforcing a few rules to protect the rights of everyone but this obviously is definitely not where this ‘tolerant’ and ‘pluralistic’ society is heading is it? There are offenders on all sides, but in my view the biggest offenders in the Gopnik’s ‘cult of certainty’ are those who worship the power of the state. Gopnik is not calling us to doubt him and all those who have benevolently called themselves to save us all; he has called all those who stand in the way of the new utopia to doubt themselves and thus submit to the state’s wisdom. [/FONT]
[FONT="]So then ‘We the People,’ what is it going to be? [/FONT]
We cannot simply say that ‘all is permissible.’ We know this. Based upon the reality of the need for some set of rules for society to abide by, people of faith ought to engage in the process of politics so that those who introduce various ‘slippery slopes’ (often a form of bribery) to ease our angst against the moral law (which often works against our desires) do not have a monopoly on what rules are made and enforced. As I have argued elsewhere, those who purport to be so permissive and gentle are really tyrants who seek to rule just about everything to create their own heaven on earth (as evidenced by the massive growth and the increasing chaos and corruption of the bureaucratic state.) We even justify (what almost amounts to) cannibalism in the case the evil state-sponsored industry of abortion. (How dare I say that!?) Our leaders hunger for more and more power every day while throwing us a few bones to placate our collective greed and lust. This keeps all of us deeply divided because the law itself keeps pounding in the wedge between God’s law and man’s law thus dividing our loyalties. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The war is real. Don’t believe this drivel about certainty itself being the origin of tyranny. Lust for power is where tyranny grows and universal doubt amongst the common folk about what is right and lawful gives aid and comfort to the development of this power which continually works against us in innumerable ways. God’s rules are relatively few compared to what our human saviors are continually offering us by the thousands. As I am certain that I exist, that murder is evil, and that both mothers and fathers are needed to raise children to continue society, so too I am certain that the origin of the universe is not a random accident in some persistent process that we so happened to have evolved to become its god. Submission to God leaves power where it belongs—with God. In this way, without trying to institute a theocracy, I can participate in the political process as an individual who believes in the reality of Natural Law—this, contrary to the swill thrown our way, would severely limit the power of government since we would only enforcing laws against assault, murder, theft, and for the honoring of contracts without creating a bloated system of legalized theft and trading favors like we have today. Homosexuals, transsexuals (and whatever of the other numerous categories there are) are always human beings under the Law and so still have the protections of the Law just like everybody else. That means nobody has the right to harm you for your desires but that harm does not include a general failure of people recognizing and giving approval to the sanctity of your desires. But this one particular issue is not really the root of the matter is it? [/FONT]
[FONT="]Marriage precedes the institution of the state yet the state has a legitimate interest in that there is often children and property involved in these relationships. Therefore I see the relation of my own marriage with my wife before the state and as a promise made before God as two different things—one is marriage, the other is a legal contract with the state (a civil union—which is what the LGBT lobby used to say was all they wanted. I would have been fine with that.) What we have today is a false equivocation…. What the (briefly) celebrating factions are saying is that ‘we’ declare that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are the same thing under the ‘law’ which effectively unites church and state under one law. (Well maybe I shouldn’t complain so much because the state religion has been openly sponsoring murder by the millions for over 40 years now. We religious folk should just shut up now—it is the law of the land. Rush is right—abortion is indeed the sacrament of liberalism.) We have no option but to honor the arrangement as marriage or face the wrath of the state. Your conscience be damned because discriminating against sexual preference has been ruled to be the same kind of thing as discriminating against a race. Why? Because powerful men say so. Never mind that one is defined by choice and the other by a superficial difference in the skin color you were born with. Never mind that one cannot make a natural law argument for discrimination based on skin color but you can make a strong natural law case against homosexual coupling. This is very sneaky but power is the ultimate goal. The LGBT lobby couldn’t stop at civil unions because this issue is yet another screen; this is an all out assault on the origin of law itself that effectively puts man as its master. The fact that homosexuals and transsexuals are both thrown into the same lobby is philosophically contradictory to the core. (But that doesn’t matter either.) Homosexuals typically argue that they were born with these desires so they are being what they were born to be while transsexuals argue that it doesn’t matter if they were born with an XX or an XY they feel like they are the other sex and want to choose to be the other sex and have the rest of us accept it and pay for the hormones and cosmetic surgery. (But again maybe I shouldn’t complain so much because I’ve read articles recently which argue that without Planned Parenthood all the old women will not be able to get breast exams and all the young girls will be getting chlamydia. That’s how liberal crusaders fight—all or nothing. Tolerant?) Careful ethical consideration and even the philosophical coherence, consistency, and integrity of your argument no longer matters; just bludgeon all opposition until it ‘works’ for everybody. And so we go skipping merrily towards the new heaven on earth as the state religion becomes firmly established with some charismatic tyrant at its head whom everyone considers permissive and benevolent. All Hail [fill in the blank.][/FONT]
[FONT="]Gopnik’s comments on pluralistic societies are misleading at best. Again we have a false equivocation between tolerance and pluralism. True pluralism would mean for instance that western and sharia law could co-exist in the same realm. We could tolerate pockets of sharia law within our borders but that would mean discarding our values (oh, let’s say, women’s rights) out the window in those areas. How committed are we to pluralism really? Indeed, Gopnik doesn’t really believe in pluralism because he is at the very base arguing for state supremacy to which you must submit. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Tolerance is not doubt as has been suggested. Tolerance is what God obviously does as evidenced by the fact that even though He has the power to make everyone behave He doesn’t use that power. This obvious fact has led to Christian dominated societies being the most tolerant and free contrary to Gopnik’s claim that the freest societies are those in which everyone doubts (more accurately doesn’t care about) what is right and so does whatever they see fit. Without the Law as a guide, human ‘law’ fractures as the various factions vie with each other for the biggest pieces of the pie. This is tribalism and is exactly what has happened to the American political process. Our ‘pluralistic’ society has us at each other’s throats. Slippery slope anyone? [/FONT]
[FONT="]Compared to men, the Creator God is infinitely merciful. This is tolerance. Our Father has no obligation to accept the sins of men but rather endured His own Son’s murder at the hands of rebellious men to provide a way out of the jaws of what the universe ultimately brings to us all. This way both sides of coin (and thus the coin itself) still have foundation. The order of the universe remains as the call to freedom has been issued. Tolerant societies do not punish people in order to reform them as our new enlightened masters are doing through lawsuits, fines, judicial censure and gag-orders. Tolerant societies act only to protect people from other people; jail is only justified for those who are a threat to society. It (and hell) is used to protect other people from the criminal. If keep your sin to yourself then it is very likely you will be left alone in a tolerant society that has no desire to ‘reform’ you against your will. God, contrary to the teachings of John Calvin, has no interest in reforming you against your will. Harming others and their property will be that which provokes a tolerant society to act against you because all people have God-given rights. This is the balance that we should strive to achieve. [/FONT]
[FONT="]You can believe and say any fool thing you want to but do not act to force anyone to submit to you and your will no matter how enlightened you think you are. Arguing your case is fine—force is not. Government power and scope would remain very limited in a tolerant society which really was interested in enforcing a few rules to protect the rights of everyone but this obviously is definitely not where this ‘tolerant’ and ‘pluralistic’ society is heading is it? There are offenders on all sides, but in my view the biggest offenders in the Gopnik’s ‘cult of certainty’ are those who worship the power of the state. Gopnik is not calling us to doubt him and all those who have benevolently called themselves to save us all; he has called all those who stand in the way of the new utopia to doubt themselves and thus submit to the state’s wisdom. [/FONT]
[FONT="]So then ‘We the People,’ what is it going to be? [/FONT]