| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Seldom Seen Smith" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2004 09:28:05 PM |
| Object: |
"Moral values" includes beating your wife |
(Yes, Bill Maher -like most liberals, -beats his Women)
November 14th, 2004
A glittering constellation of populist inquiries into what defines "moral
values" illuminates the black velvet canvas of ideological debate like
never
before. A starry alignment, of sorts, occurred recently when Alan Simpson,
the folksy former senator from Wyoming, paid a visit to Bill Maher's HBO
program Real Time with Bill Maher. Simpson suffered an onslaught of
heretical insults that managed to unapologetically and simultaneously
vilify
Christians and venerate homosexuals. That such attacks occur on Maher's
program is, of course, not surprising. Maher's unabashed animus toward
religion is a staple of his comedy act (I reject seriously denominating him
or any other Frankenian jester a pundit). His denunciations of
Christianity
draw wild applause. So too his reverent encomiums to men who love men and
women who love women.
But it was not Maher's predictable pelting of Christians on this broadcast
that was sig-nificant. Simpson showed appropriate levels of righteous
anger, taking Maher to task for stereotyping the "Christian right." "Who
are they?" he demanded to know. Matching this decibel of outrage, he
scolded Maher for "making fun" of gays and lesbians. Keep making fun of
religious Americans and gays and lesbians, he admonished, and the left will
never win a national election.
For Simpson, it was a classic performance. This prairie dog has an
intuitive understand-ing of the normative values Americans cherish while
maintaining an honest sensitivity to the rights of Wyoming's gay
subculture.
"I don't have to come on this program when Matthew Shepard was killed in
this state and the people of this state were offended. So put that one in
your pipe!"
None of this was at odds with what we have come to expect from Simpson or
other conservative patriarchs who minister from a traditionalist pulpit.
But his suggestion of a moral equivalency between Christianity and
homosexuality begs a question that everyone is thinking but no one is
asking: Why is it so challenging to proudly defend Christianity yet
expected of us to defend homosexuality?
Perhaps I read too much into his remarks, but it seemed as though Simpson's
defense of homosexuality resonated stronger than did his defense of
Christianity. (Even Maher expressed confusion. After asking Simpson if he
was gay, Maher was quick to add the laugh line, "I have not heard anybody
be
this sensitive about a gay joke since Harvey Fierstein.")
Arguably, Simpson was defending people-Christians and gays-not
ideas-Christianity and homosexuality. But if the sanctity of Christianity
imposes limitations on the scope of permissible ridicule, how is it that
homosexuality is equally sanctified? Simpson has shared the stage with
Maher before. He is familiar with Maher's format and can expect Maher to
chase rabidly after sacred cows. Was Simpson's condemnation really
intended
to discourage a wise-***** like Maher? Did Simpson really mean to suggest
that poking fun at Christianity and homosexuality are equally beyond the
pale? If so, then, intentionally or not, he was fueling the equivalency
argument leftist organizations are making in courtrooms the world over. As
has unnecessarily become a frequent occurrence, the blurring line that
divides Christian morality from homosexual immorality was smudged just a
bit
more.
Not too long ago, before the televangelist scandals, Christians were your
neighbors and friends. No one gave any thought to how they might subject
anyone to their toe-curling BELIEFS. Today, Christians are seen as public
menaces, grist for jokes and endless media-based or Hollywood-produced
opprobrium. From growling broad epithets ("the religious right") to
barking
pious indignation, an erstwhile taciturn class of secularists routinely,
and, yes, liberally, purges its occluded venom against Christians.
Anti-Christianity, it may seem, is the new anti-Semitism. As Gerald S.
Rellick, surely expressing the views and sadistic flippancy of many, summed
up in a Los Angeles Times letter to the Editor (11/10/04), "So many
Christians, so few lions." No offense, of course.
There was a time, not too long ago, when an individual's unconventional
sexuality went largely unchallenged. Homosexuals, transvestites and
hermaphrodites, as well as bigamists, prostitutes, pedophiles, polygamists
and pornographers, accepted their narrowly fixed place in the pantheon of
moral relativists.
What homosexuals did in the privacy of their bedroom was nobody's business.
Now, it's everyone's business. Increasingly and unceasingly. One can't
turn the corner without some reminder of how homosexuals, like illegal
alien
domestic laborers, contribute toward our great society. Could we get
decent
theatre without them?
The intersection of public attitudes toward Christianity and homosexuality
informed the recent general election. It calls to mind ethical formulae
for
transection of these hot-button morality issues. Ethicists speak of three
categories of normative ethical systems. One category of what are called
action-based theories of morality focuses entirely upon the actions a
person
performs (deontic). One who fails in performing a duty owed to oth-ers
acts
immorally (the ethical equivalent of the legal tort of negligence).
Religion guides this ethical system. Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.
Another action-based category (teleology) focuses on the consequences of
one's
behavior and the choices one makes. Under this system, one who chooses to
do something, regardless of intent, that results in injury to another has
acted immorally. Think of HIV-infected AIDs carriers or unwed teenagers
having unprotected sex. These systems examine the question, "What should I
do?"
But there is a third category of ethical systems that approaches questions
of moral behavior by focusing on objective character traits that are to be
encouraged. This approach leaves others to ask whether one's conduct is
morally correct. Rather than asking "What should I do?" this approach asks
"What sort of person should I be?" Generosity and kindness are among the
character traits that define morality under virtue-based ethical logic.
The ethical dimension stands front and center within the same-sex marriage
debate. In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Attorney General Jon Bruning,
the American Civil Lib-erties Union challenged the State of Nebraska's law
barring same-sex marriage. The law, passed by Nebraska voters in the 2000
general election and codified as Article I, section 29 of the Nebraska
Constitution, provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid
and recognized in Nebraska. It further invalidates same-sex civil unions
and domestic partnerships.
In their brief to the U.S. District Court, ACLU Nebraska (joined by the
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU Foundation) denied
that
the plaintiffs were asking the Court "to provide them with marriage, civil
unions, domestic partnerships, or any particular benefits or protections."
What then?
"Instead plaintiffs seek only their constitutionally protected right to an
equal opportunity to convince elected representatives and government
employers of the merits of extending a range of legal protections to people
in committed same-sex relationships, free from the disability that Section
29 imposes on gay couples alone."
The subtext of this request should be obvious to anyone keeping a watchful
eye on the buildup to debate over President Bush's proposed Constitutional
Amendment recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman. It holds
that courts should invalidate the will of the people. In the Nebraska
case,
the "constitutionally protected right to an equal opportunity" to be
persuasive to legislators and employers does not exist for Huskers or
anyone
else.
But it is the virtue appeal that informs their argument. The plaintiffs'
member couples "wish to protect lifetime relationships because of the
significance in their lives of those relationships" which turn on "shared
values" such as "commitment and responsibility." The plaintiffs believe in
"honesty and monogamy, building a certain future together, and the
importance of providing daily support and strength to each other." This
rhetorical appeal crystallizes the central theme of same-sex marriage
proponents: We want to be good people; thus we are moral.
This appeal rejects action-based ethical principles. It circumnavigates
the
question of what duties may be owed to others in society or the
consequences
of same-sex relationships. Is there any regard at all to how same-sex
relationships may affect children? Or the family structure? Is the policy
of encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital
relationship, and thus limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, not an
inter-est states are free to protect?
What of the imposition on business or labor? In New York City, Mayor
Bloomberg fought to preserve his right to negotiate low bid contracts only
to have courts tie his hands by requiring him to discriminate against
businesses that do not provide equal benefits to same-sex partners as are
provided to married couples. The complexity of redesigning society to
accommodate the agenda of contemporary homosexuals is not just con-founding
the City of New York. In the aftermath of the Bush reelection, civil
liberties activists are reconstituting and remobilizing.
By claiming moral parity, the gay brigade, while battle victorious, must
ultimately concede defeat. What Christianity has built in more than two
millennia cannot be destroyed on the basis of misplaced ethical concerns.
That many gays are virtuous is beside the point. That they dream of
committed relationships recognized by law is also beside the point. What
the individual wants for himself has never been a compelling rationale for
attainment. Deontic and teleological ethical constructs shift the focus
from
self-centeredness to self-sacrifice. Selflessness, as exemplified by
Christ's
sacrifice, is the Christian's focus. There simply is no equivalency
between
a doctrine that fundamentally advocates selfless behavior and one that is
intrinsically self-indulgent.
It is easy to feel sympathy for gays who sincerely want to participate
meaningfully in a relationship and feel left out. Our identities sometimes
derive not from who we think we are but from what others think of us. The
Queen in Alice in Wonderland advised:
"Be what you would seem to be--or if you'd like it put more simply--Never
imagine your-self not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others
that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had
been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
Better advice might be to accept who you are and let others be defined by
their judgment of you.
Life's promises are not always within reach. Not everyone has an
opportunity to be married, heterosexuals included. Married couples may not
have the ability to conceive children. Nature can spoil our fondest
yearnings. But at the intersection of Christianity and homosexuality, the
debate over moral equivalency is best to be avoided. Each one of us
possesses the power to define ourselves through our convictions and
actions.
We have a chance to seize possession of our life's goals and purposes not
through our sexual identi-ties but through the quality of life we cede to
those among us. In this, Christians need not apologize. Indeed, they
should remain strong against the tidal forces arrayed against them. The
line
can be sharpened.
William J. Becker, Jr.
Hey what the heck, John Lennon sang about peace and ***** while beating the
snot out of Joko.. So I guess this is par for the course.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4014
-Cap
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral values" includes beating your wife |
16 Nov 2004 02:29:19 PM |
|
|
William J. Becker, Jr.
Hey what the heck, John Lennon sang about peace and ***** while beating
the
snot out of Joko.. So I guess this is par for the course.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4014
-Cap
You do realise the bible advocates wife beating right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral values" includes beating your wife |
15 Nov 2004 09:44:25 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <10pisqk8cjnbb4b@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
It holds
that courts should invalidate the will of the people.
Yes. That's one of the reason's we *have courts...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
