January 31, 2011

Disappointed About Libertarianism Article

Dear Blogos Editor,

I am disappointed at your article regarding Libertarianism. Or better put, your disapproving of Ron Paul's stand on the legalization of pot and other important issues.

It is a fact that other countries have legalized pot, and consumption of it has gone down. A case for this is Portugal. Besides, Prohibition does not work. It did not work with alcohol and it is a waste of economic resources with the "war"on drugs.

I really do not have much time for further comment, but you have let me down as a Christian, Carl. You should be supporting a fellow believer! (In case you did not know, Ron Paul IS a Christian, he just does not brag about it in public, he does not want to mix religion and politics, and therefore wants to keep it as such).

Who you are going to vote for? A better looking younger fellow? Or perhaps someone that has cheated on his wife? And I sure hope you are not voting to reelect Obama!

Your Disappointed Brother,

Ed F.

Dear Ed,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my article. I must say though, I don't think you read my article very closely. Two things stand out regarding your response. First, nowhere in the article do I mention Ron Paul, either positively or negatively. Second, far from arguing against the legalization of marijuana, my article explicitly states that from a libertarian perspective there isn't a good argument against its legalization (though I prefer to use the term "decriminalization"). In fact, I mention that as with alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs has exacted an enormous toll in lives lost, property damaged or confiscated, and civil liberties lost or violated. All while doing nothing to prevent its use. As much as I would love to respond to your comments, they aren't reflective of what I wrote.

Regarding Ron Paul. Even though my article didn't mention him explicitly, let me go on record as saying that I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. Yes, I know he's a Christian, but that's not the main reason I'm voting for him. I'm voting for him because he is a man of principle and conviction who holds individual liberty and limited government as his guiding principles. So I'm not sure what made you think I'm against Ron Paul.

Blessings,

Carl

.........................................................................................................................


January 31, 2011

Banning Gay Marriage is Discrimination

Dear Blogos Editor,

First of all, congratulations on your new site. I'm glad and excited for your new venture and pray that God would bless and prosper your mission. As a Christian, I stand side by side with you all in contending with the faith. God bless you all.

However, I must disagree with you in one point in the fact that you say banning gay marriage is not discrimination. If I were to ban interracial marriage, and tell two people they cannot be married based on their race, it would be discrimination. The Lord himself shows discrimination, he chooses to save those who believes in his Son, and reject those who do not. There's nothing wrong with a government being discriminate in some cases, as long as its based on an objective set of morals. In this case, that would be the Word of God. If we want America (or any country) to judge on spiritual matters, they must judge ALL spiritual matters, which means we must also persecute heretics, and we both know from history how that works out. If a society would want to base their government off the Bible, I would be excited, but wary. But the nation that has been murdering infants for over 50 years and that has done some very deplorable things in warfare, needs whole-scale moral reform, not just knit picking to ostracize certain sinful groups, and promoting others. That is my opinion. God bless.

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

Regarding my recent article concerning the issue of same sex marriage in Scotland, you expressed disagreement with what I wrote. You remarked,

"I must disagree with you in one point in the fact that you say banning gay marriage is not discrimination. If I were to ban interracial marriage, and tell two people they cannot be married based on their race, it would be discrimination."

This is not quite what I said. Maintaining the traditional concept of marriage as an exclusive life-long union between one man and one woman does discriminate. However, it is not discrimination against persons, but against behaviour. As I previously stated, all laws are discriminatory in this sense. As I explained in my previous article, there are a number of reasons why the institution of same-sex-marriage is not conducive to society's best interests. Homosexuals have -- or at least should have -- equal rights to anyone else when it comes to such things as employment, benefits, medical care, etc. Likewise, they have equal rights to marry anyone of the opposite gender. It is not merely equal rights that homosexuals seek, but rather special rights -- that is, the right to fundamentally redefine the age-long institution of marriage. You also committed a category error with respect to your comparison of same-sex-marriage with interracial marriage. Again, this is an issue of discrimination against behaviour, and not against persons. There are plenty of former homosexuals; whereas there are no former Africans. Similarly, denying a schoolboy the right to get changed in the girls' changing rooms is not discrimination against boys but rather against a particular behaviour. In any civilised society, certain restrictions on what is permissable have to be set in place.

You further commented,

The Lord himself shows discrimination, he chooses to save those who believes in his Son, and reject those who do not. There's nothing wrong with a government being discriminate in some cases, as long as its based on an objective set of morals. In this case, that would be the Word of God.

I don't think any of the arguments in my previous article made appeal to the Word of God.

You continued,

If we want America (or any country) to judge on spiritual matters, they must judge ALL spiritual matters, which means we must also persecute heretics, and we both know from history how that works out.

There are three things that any government can do in relation to a given behaviour or activity. They can (i) prohibit an activity; (ii) permit an activity; or (iii) promote an activity. The institution of same-sex-marriage attempts to make the move from merely permitting an activity to actively promoting it. As I stated in my article, the majority of homosexuals living in areas where same-sex-marriage is legal to not get married. Why? The purpose of their campaign is not primarily for the purpose of marriage, but rather for legitimisation of their practice.

You concluded,

"If a society would want to base their government off the Bible, I would be excited, but wary. But the nation that has been murdering infants for over 50 years and that has done some very deplorable things in warfare, needs whole-scale moral reform, not just knit picking to ostracize certain sinful groups, and promoting others."

Again, the arguments I described in my previous post made absolutely no appeal to the Bible. I quite agree, however, that Christians ought to be careful not to single out homosexuality as if it were the 'chief of all sins'. The world is in need of moral reform, and this includes matters such as abortion. The church also needs to be careful not to be found guilty of double standards. As Jesus explained in Matthew 7:4-5, "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." The church must be careful to walk in purity and integrity, and not fall into sin.

- Jonathan McLatchie

.........................................................................................................................


January 31, 2011

How is Homosexuality Harmful?

Dear Blogos Editor,

I just read your post about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I really appreciate the emphasis of God’s love for them, and the fact that it is a sin no worse than any other sin. My question I would like answered is: how does homosexuality ruin a persons life? All sins are sins because they ruin your life. God advises us not to lie because of many reasons I can think of, first you can destroy relationships, take advantage of other people, avoid counsel that could help, there are plenty of logical reasons why not to lie. I find it difficult to come up with many logical reasons against homosexuality, besides those involving childbirth. Any scientic research on how male partners don't function together properly or anything like that would be greatly appreciated, even just raw opinion.

Thanks guys, God bless!

Sean

Dear Sean,

Thanks for your very valid question. I’m glad you enjoyed my article, The Bible and Being Gay. First let me I agree with Jonathan’s statement in the previous entry about not singling out homosexuality as worse than others sins. As Christians, I believe we should choose to treat this subject with care, as there tends to be some prejudice about homosexuality in the Christian community which tends to warp our ministry approach in ways that are unnecessary. Like you said, sins are sins.

To answer your question directly, the idea that sins are strictly defined as “only that which hurts others” is a popular concept, but it is not a biblical concept. Throughout the Bible, there are examples of commands that are to be followed for the sake of obedience, even when the action forbidden is not in itself hurtful. The most obvious example is that of Eve eating the fruit in the garden. Eve was not harmed by consuming a piece of fruit. The problem was Eve’s disobedience. The curse came, not from eating fruit, but from her refusal to obey God’s simple command and follow the laws He had put in place. Another prime example is that of unbelief. God calls unbelief a sin. Our unbelief does not harm us (at least not in this life) nor does it harm others. What unbelief represents is a refusal to accept salvation according to God’s way (grace through faith in Jesus) and that’s why He calls it sin. In fact, it is this refusal – not the potential for harming others or oneself – that is the common element in every sin.

I will leave to others the task of telling you exactly how homosexuality harms a person. I know that conclusions have been drawn to that effect by sociologists studying same-sex marriages vs. opposite-sex marriages, but I don’t know much about it, and anyway I don’t think that’s really the point. As I pointed out in my article, the Bible is clear: homosexual behavior is something that God does not like. That should be reason enough to avoid it.

- Tiffany Wismer
 
Letters Archive
......................................

January 2012