Stones Cry Out

We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil

This is a pretty bold claim. Many Christians throughout the ages have held that pre-quickening abortion didn't kill a person (Augustine, famously). Since the Bible passes this question in silence, it makes sense that there would be divergence on the question. The paucity of Biblical grounds means it's a topic on which reasonable people can differ.

As for gay rights: there are lots of things that are sins that we don't restrict. For example, it is a sin to pray to Allah, yet we don't restrict the building of mosques, and it would seem wrong to do so. Why? In a pluralist society, we allow others to determine their own projects within minimal bounds (don't hurt others, etal).

Being something of a consistent Touchstone reader, I don't believe Hutchens is arguing for illegality. Instead he's opposing the celebration of immorality in the Democratic wings. I think it's a rather reasonable argument, and this is coming from someone who's seen an awful lot of Will and Grace.

Folks at Stones Cry Out:

I think you are spot on. Whether we live in a pluralist society is irrelevant to the question of whether something is evil or not. God did not leave us floundering uncertain, tossed about by every wind of change and trying, from generation to generation, to determine for ourselves what is wrong based on what the society around us is doing. We are called to CHANGE the society around us by the spread of the Gospel and the upholding of God's truth.

Sodomy is so clearly denounced in the bible that I tend to lose focus and become more fascinated with the person making the incredible claim that it is an activity about which "reasonable people" can differ than I am on the topic itself!
I'm also curious on what grounds even a "pre-quickening" abortion should be encouraged. I'm trying with insurmountable difficulty, to imagine the Lord Jesus Christ smiling as a Christian adds his sanction to sucking of a baby's brains out of the back of it's head and saying to Himself, "Well, my people can reasonably differ on this point!"

The fact is, the argument from the practice of famous Christians is also irrelevant to the question of whether something is truly evil. The question for me is, "what does the Scripture say?" and Scripture after Scripture makes it plain that both sodomy and abortion are positive evils.

The Democratic Party has regathered itself and become the party in opposition to the Christian Right (as it sees it). They see Bush as the epitome of the bigoted, Bible-quoting fundamentalist that is out to cram his morality down their throat. It is an indisputable fact that they are more and more become a party in opposition to the God of Scripture. In almost every single question of God's created order versus man's perversion, the Democratic party has chosen perversion:

• Same-sex marriage
  
• Homosexuality
  
• Racism (a denial of the one-bloodness of all mankind created in the image of God). Especially during the 60s
  
• Celebration of pornography
  
• Abortion (murder of innocents for convenience)
  
• Theft (in the form of taxation that takes from the producing and gives to the non-producing without the consent of those producing)
  
• Appeasement in the face of evil (witness Afghanistan and Iraq)
  

Am I saying conservatives and Republicans don't sin? No way! What I am saying is that even a cursory look at the platform of the Democratic party and the issues it supports should give even the most immature Christian pause.
Paul lived in a pluralist society as well, but that didn't stop him from preaching the unchanging truth of God's Word.

It shouldn't stop us either.

jpe, I had much the similar reaction. There are lots of actions that are immoral that the government either has no right to ban or where it is very a ineffective instrument when it tries to ban them. There are also many moral actions that the government either has no right to support or where it is very ineffective instrument to do so.

Take welfare. It is a very basic Christian principal that you should help the poor. It is a huge leap, however, to say that therefore the government has the right to give poor people money from taxes or that giving poor people money is an effective way to solve their problems. Whether or not welfare is a just or effective role of the government is not the point here, as much as it is that well-meaning Christians (all of whom may care about helping the poor) honestly disagree about whether or not it is.

Politics has no easy answer for the Christian. All political parties are composed of sinful people and therefore will always get some stuff wrong, either by honest mistake or through malice.

"Whether we live in a pluralist society is irrelevant to the question of whether something is evil or not."

Of course, but it does seem to bear on the distinctly political question of whether certain activities ought to be legal. For example, we both agree that praying to Allah is a sin, right? Yet we (probably) both agree that others should be legally permitted to do so. The question for the opponent of gay marriage, then, is what are the principled grounds on which we distinguish these two things? How is it that both are sins, yet one should be legal and the other shouldn't?

I'm also curious on what grounds even a "pre-quickening" abortion should be encouraged.

It isn't a person, and your failure to imagine that others could believe so is a failure of your imagination, rather than a defect in the idea. The fact of the matter is that, historically, the pre-quickening fetus typically hasn't been considered a person, and you haven't provided any reason for why one ought to consider it so.

I believe that certain types of warfare, such as dropping bombs from airplanes, constitute the murder of innocents for convenience. When we drop bombs we are surely going to kill many more uninvolved civilians than if we battle on the ground, but we choose bombing when we deem it "more effective."

I believe the use of nuclear weapons is absolutely unjustifiable in any circumstance.

And wouldn't it count as theft to receive 40 hours of a person's hard work every week and then pay them wages that still qualify as poverty? If government officials refuse to raise the minimum wage, are they not condoning theft?

There are thieving murderers on both sides of the aisle. I can't criticize anyone over the political party they join, even though I'm not a member of any party.

And I agree that for "victimless" sins like idolatry or fornication, the government should probably stay out of it.

FYI to all readers: I linked to an article that was published in a magazine two or three years ago. I gave full credit for the link and the quote. I do not think homosexuals should go jail. I think abortion should be illegal. I have gay friends. Deep breaths, now. Very good.

I do not think homosexuals should go jail.

Assuming that's directed at me: Of course. When I was talking about legality, I meant the legality of gay marriage (hence: "the question for the opponent of gay marriage is...").

There's a difference between "not making illegal" and "celebrating". Those of you defending the Democratic party position on homosexuality, please think about that difference for a moment.

Joan, "wouldn't it count as theft to receive 40 hours of a person's hard work every week and then pay them wages that still qualify as poverty" no that would not count as theft. Theft is taking something that does not belong to you. Employees freely give their labor in exchange for an agreed upon wage. If you define that as theft, then the word "theft" no longer has any meaning.

"When we drop bombs we are surely going to kill many more uninvolved civilians than if we battle on the ground", what the heck are you talking about? Seriously, do you know how modern bombs and guns work? So if we drop a guided bomb on a military base fifty miles from any civilians we are surely going to kill more uninvolved civilians than if we fire machine guns and artillery in the middle of a crowded city? Please explain that to me.

"use of nuclear weapons is absolutely unjustifiable in any circumstance." So you are saying that using a nuclear weapon against another country's nuclear missiles five minutes before they launch against targets all over the world is absolutely unjustifiable even if it would save 5 billion innocent lives, prevent world war III and a nuclear winter, and stop the entire collapse of civilization? What if Martians plan to destroy the earth and the only way to stop them is through the use of nuclear weapons in space that will not damage any life on earth? Is that still "absolutely unjustifiable in any circumstance"?

I think people misunderstand "nuclear weapons", as if every nuclear weapon is at least as big as the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are nukes that are barely bigger than the largest conventional bombs, which would utterly destroy a small military objective with very little collateral damage (and very little radiation) but would do nothing against a city.

Also, as Pete pointed out, laser-guided bombs are LESS dangerous to civilians than any sort of fire from the ground. I was at breakfast with a friend from the navy (he's an airplane mechanic on one of the carriers that launched the first wave of assaults in GW2) and he commented that, once, he had a laser on one of his bombs that was *badly* mis-calibrated. He said if he tried to hit the ketchup bottle on the middle of the table, he might miss it by 2 or 3 feet. If the laser is properly calibrated, he could've hit the bottle itself. So, when we're talking about minimizing civilian casualties... laser-guided bombs are a lot better than tanks and machine guns.

But, again, looking at the original point: there's room for debate on topics like whether or not certain wars should be fought (we Mennonites tend toward the "no" side), or certain social policies should be enacted, or certain behaviors should be illegal. But there's no room for debate on the question of whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful (it is) or late-term elective abortions are an abomination (they are). There's room for debate over what sort of limits should be put on abortion or how exactly we should deal with homosexual marriage, but when a party actively encourages homosexuality and says there's nothing wrong with it, or actively supports late-term elective abortions, they've crossed the line.

To some people, those particular offenses are not big enough to drive them out of the party (and to some, those are not even offenses.) To some, the Republican stances on other issues are so important that they remain Democrats in spite of some of the party's worse positions. That's a judgement call, I suppose...

a party actively encourages homosexuality

What does that mean?

Does the Bible say that we are to impose the Church's laws on those outside the Church? It's one thing to speak truth and identify sin, but it's quite another to forbid a non-believer from sinning. Do we make the Sabbath an American law? How about coveting or idolatry?

For the record, I support neither the Democrat nor Republican party. Both have their good points and their bad points.

Adam: Fair points, but again, Touchstone was not (and is not) suggesting that homosexuality be illegal. The paper's objection (and my objection) to the Democrats is the fact that the party actively promotes certain behaviors that the Bible explicitly condemns.

Donna Brazile, along with other leaders of the Democrat Party, was heard to speak forcefully on the Terri Schiavo case saying, “Let the process work!” This, despite clear evidence that the process isn’t working, wasn’t working and shows no signs of working. This has become even clearer since the Congress acted to reaffirm Terri’ Constitutional rights to due process and the reports of Michael Schiavo’s brutal disregard for her welfare. Terri’s injuries have gone uninvestigated while her husband, the most likely suspect, has been allowed with the assistance of Judge Greer to conceal all evidence of the crime.

Two things: first, we have entrusted far too much power to the courts, which trust has been violated. Second, the Democrat Party leadership seems unerringly to seek the wrong side of every issue and staunchly defend it. Whether it’s abortion, Social Security, the environment, taxes, gay marriage, terrorism, promoting democracy abroad, whatever. And now it's Terri Schiavo’s right to legal action to save her life from “legal murder” at the hands of her husband—a cruel death disguised as “slipping painlessly into sleep.”

The paper's objection (and my objection) to the Democrats is the fact that the party actively promotes certain behaviors that the Bible explicitly condemns.

What does that mean? Does allowing gays to marry "promote" homosexuality? That doesn't make sense to me. By allowing Muslims to build mosques, it doesn't seem that we're "promoting" Islam. Or are we? And if so, shouldn't we forbid the building of mosques per your own logic?

If not, on what grounds do you distinguish mosque-building from gay marriage?

jpe, I think you can distinguish mosque building from gay marriage because mosque building (or church building) is not a government sanctioned activity, while marriage is. In the US, governments gives out licenses for marriage and have to define who (or what) can get this license for it to have any meaning: can people be married to more than one person at a time, can children marry, can blood relatives marry, can people marry someone of the same sex, etc.

The government does not have to do this however and the Bible would seem to indicate that what is a marriage is ultimately defined by God, not by the state. My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage license business altogether, but until it does the state can be as arbitrary as it wants to in determinig the rules for giving out licenses.

I'll be honest; my issue with the Democrats is not that they support gay marriage. My issue that, on the whole, the political Left in this country has yet to find a lifestyle that it would not endorse. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. And Pete's point is quite right.

jpe, I think you can distinguish mosque building from gay marriage because mosque building (or church building) is not a government sanctioned activity...

I can't just build a mosque, however. I need to go down to the zoning board and get a zoning permit; I then need to have the design approved; and then I need to have a licensed contractor build it for me. If they didn't sanction my mosque through the granting of permits, I couldn't build it. And, in fact, there are some structures the government won't sanction as a matter of law (a field of rusty nails, for example). Your argument that the government doesn't sanction particular buildings is factually incorrect.

So we're back to square one: why should the government continue to sanction mosque-building through the granting of permits? By doing so, aren't they sanctioning and celebrating Allah-worship, a form of idolatry?

But the government does not care if you build a church or a mosque or a meditation center or an athiest gathering center. All are treated equally before the law. If I tell the government that I am building I call a church and the next day decide to call it a mosque instead, the government does not care as it does not change the fundamental nature of the building. Building buildings is the government sanctioned activity in this case, not the building of mosques. No one ever gets a "mosque building permit", they get a "building permit".

There is a need to distinguish between "permits", "sanctions", and "promotes". My quick definitons: Permits means that the government will not punish you if you do it, Sanctions means that you can do it if the government gives you a permit or license to do that specific thing, and Promotes means that the government actively encourages the activity. You can permit actions without sanctioning or promoting them, which is the current case with gay marriage which is permitted but (except for isolated areas) not sanctioned as homosexual couples can call themselves married in private and the government does not care, but can not get a license that says they are married for use in public.

But the government does not care if you build a church or a mosque or a meditation center or an athiest gathering center. All are treated equally before the law.

That's because there's legislation (the first amendment) that requires all be treated equally. So, if I understand your argument, it's this equal treatment that means the government isn't sanctioning the activity?

The upshot of that would seem to be that, if the government passed a law mandating equal treatment of gay marriage and straight marriage, then the government allowing either wouldn't be sanctioning either, specifically.

In other words, governments don't sanction mosques, they just sanction buildings, period. If we passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, government wouldn't be sanctioning gay marriages, they'd just be sanctioning marriage, period.

That seems to be a reasonable conclusion from your analysis of the sanctioning of mosques/buildings.