Friday, March 9

Learning From Africa

Nigeria has a law that is working its way through its government that would assign a five-year prison sentence on anyone practicing homosexuality. Would American Christians support the same type of legislation if it came before our government for a vote? We are on comfortable ground talking about legislation and constitutional amendments to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Fine. But if we are going to be consistent, if we truly believe that homosexuality is wrong, then is there a reason why we wouldn't support such a law? Are we afraid of those who would laugh at us? I can see the comments already to this post--most wouldn't even be charitable and I will be openly mocked even to entertain thoughts about this law.



But we must be consistent and we must stand up for the truth even if it hurts.



Update:
How could I guess about the lack of charity.

From a anon. comment below:

You think you're entitled to charity when you are openly advocating imprisoning a group of people based completely on who they are, rather than on any harm they caused? You are a sick and disgusting person. You are what's wrong with America.







And, yes, I believe everyone deserves charity in open dialog even over the issues that other might find the most offensive. Isn't that part of the concept of freedom of speech?

22 Comments:

XveganX said...

For those who advocate the US being a Christian nation, run by Biblical standards, then it would be consistent to establish penalties for homosexual acts IF your reading of Scripture deems that to be a proper course of action (mine doesn't). But if you support a secular government, it would be a poor move (because a non-heterosexual person has every right to fair and equal treatment under a secular government).

PaulNoonan said...

Really? Wow.

PaulNoonan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

I love Patrick Henry College. It's like having our own little Taliban right here in the U.S.ofA.

Anonymous said...

"most wouldn't even be charitable..."

You think you're entitled to charity when you are openly advocating imprisoning a group of people based completely on who they are, rather than on any harm they caused? You are a sick and disgusting person. You are what's wrong with America.

It's funny that you attend a college named for a man who's famous for saying "Give me liberty or give me death" but you advocate robbing individuals of liberty every chance you get.

PaulNoonan said...

Your free speech is that you get to say whatever you want. Ours is that we get to call you evil and compare what you propose to Japanese internment in WWII. You are talking about putting people in prison. That is a very serious proposition that would affect millions of people. You don't get to make such a statement consequence-free. I agree with the anonymous commenter, you are certainly one of the things that is wrong with America.

Lucas said...

Paul Noonan:

What do you mean by "consequences?"

Are you saying that the government should restrict that type of speech? Gag me? Fine me for posting it here on my blog? Send me to prison just for SAYING it? Now that sounds more like Japanese imprisonment camps to me.

Anonymous said...

Of course he's not saying that you retard. You're the one advocating oppresive big government, not Paul. He's advocating freedom. He's pointing out what a nutty-bar you are for wanting to put extreme and capricious limits on freedom. Hopefully other people will read what you wrote and realize it for themselves. Perhaps that will make people realize what crazy idiots people from the far right are. In wisconsin there are a dozen or so bloggers that consider themselves part of an "alliance" with you. Perhaps your position here and your warped world view will help their readers see what's wrong with the right.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

"And, yes, I believe everyone deserves charity in open dialog even over the issues that other might find the most offensive. Isn't that part of the concept of freedom of speech?"

You can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. I think you deserve to be called what you are: a bigot, a jerk, a brain-washed idiot etc. THAT is part of the concept of freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

You deserve charity? So we should just be like, "well lil' Hitler, why don't you explain to us a little more about why we should throw gay people in prisons... don't you think work camps would make better use of them? Please elaborate."

I think we need to call a spade a spade. What you advocate is evil and wrong. The book you base your life around is evil and wrong too.

jimspice said...

I, for one, wholeheartedly support your right to say anything you want, but you did not show the wherewithall to actaully make a statement. Count the number of question marks in your post! Come on...actually SAY something.

I challenge you to state outright "I believe homosexuals should be imprisoned".

I also invite you to state you believe heterosexuals who engage in premarital sex should be jailed. If you can't so aver, ask yourself why not.

Lucas said...

Jim:

Granted I didn't make a statement. But if you will read my post again you will find that the direction of the post was toward people who agree with me about the bible and homosexual acts.

It was still thinking this law over in my own mind, and have been doing some research too. I hope to post an opinion post in the future.

Lucas said...

Anon...

I thought the homosexual agenda was all about tolerance...so don't you think you should give me some charity as part of that tolerance???

PaulNoonan said...

I think it's a mistake to assume that the anonymous fellow is part of the homosexual agenda. He may just be against putting people in prison for no good reason.

You'll find no non-judgmental relativism from me. No tolerance where none is given. This idea is what evil is. Destroying men and women based on nothing so much as a one measly sentence in a 1000 page book is evil.

DannyNoonan said...

The homosexual agenda? What are you talking about? Tolerance? Charity? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. It is not intolerant or uncharitable to call a bad person a bad person. It’s not intolerant or uncharitable to call an evil idea an evil idea. I can’t even believe that you would be so hypocritical as to accuse anyone else of being intolerant.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

"But if you will read my post again you will find that the direction of the post was toward people who agree with me about the bible and homosexual acts."

Jesus was gay, wasn't he? C'mon, use a little common sense and think about it Lucas. Jesus was a Popular guy, sensitive, he hung out mostly with a bunch of other dudes, he [most likely] never married, he prefered wine to whiskey, he wore sandals, and I seem to remember some bit about John laying his head on Jesus’ "inner tunic."

jonathan said...

Lucas,

Please visit Equality Loudoun and download the invitation to the Soulforce equality ride. Hope to see you at the reception where we can engage in "open dialog".

Peace and Love,
Jonathan

Anonymous said...

I am absolutely fascinated that you (and most of the religious right) focus on gay people as being immoral, but don't express even equal moral outrage about the fact that men rape 1 out of 4 women, that 1 out of 4 women are beaten by their husbands or (male) partners at some point in their lifetime, and 1 out of 4 girls are victims of incest or sexual abuse by male relatives. In the face of such reprehensible behaviors, why the focus on gay people?? Why not spend, even as much, if not much more time condemning people who are ACTUALLY causing real social harm: rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters? Why is the focus on the "immorality" of people who cause NO ACTUAL HARM TO ANYONE (although I understand that in your jaded worldview, we are harming ourselves). Isn't your time and your moral outrage better spent focusing on people and behaviors that cause ACTUAL HARM and where there are ACTUAL VICTIMS??? Even if, in your blighted worldview, you think being gay is immoral, wouldn't it at least be waaaay down the priority list of immoral behaviors (like rampant rape, incest, child abuse,violence, etc.) in this society??? Your "morality" makes no damn sense--and you know it.

GuyofGaddarra said...

Dear sirs:
Thank you Lucas for allowing open dialogue on your blog. If you all would be so kind as to indulge me, I shall begin my comments at the most recent and work my way back until there is sufficient refutation.
1) To Mr. Anonymous: I know not what course others may take, but I do not waste my personal time in following the leads of others unless the Lord tells me so. There is a time for moral outrage and redress against those who abuse women. There are three obvious reasons why I, and I hope Mr. Lucas, choose to speak about other issues. The first is that while these abuses used to be accepted by society, that is no longer the case. All of the things you mention are illegal in the United States. Thus it would be superfluous for us to continue to discuss the matter as regards whether we should enact such a set of laws. There is such a set and therefore it is a done deal.
2) To Mr. JesusisJustAlrightWithMe: first of all, Jesus could not be proven gay as it is a sin to fornicate and as you admitted he was never married. Secondly, the wine Jesus drank was non-alcoholic. The closest Jesus ever came to drinking fermented wine was when he was on the cross and someone gave him the vinegar spill off from the fermented wine rationed out to the soldiers at Golgotha. Lastly, if you were to read Mr. Lucas's posts you would understand that the very existence of the article we are discussing proves he is not brainwashed, I leave it to him to defend the other charges, but rather is looking at the opinions being published by his college and saying that if this is the idea they will be pushing then it is time that they consider the consequences.
3) To Mr. DannyNoonan: There is still no evidence that Mr. Lucas was being intolerant. Unless he starts deleting the posts or banning people from viewing and commenting on his blog then he is being tolerant. Similarly those, and I trust you are not one of them, who blindly dismiss anyone who challenges the behavior of a minority as being invalid, especially when they have an evidential basis for saying so, is being intolerant. To anyone with a fifth-grade or more education, in the U.S., it is obvious that the purpose of Mr. Lucas's posting was in order to encourage dialogue. If he were intolerant he would merely follow the leads of others and his college and leave a short message to the effect of, "Smear the queers." Rather he is not only taking the time to say that if the Churchies succeed we will wind up with a kooky law such as there is in Nigeria and that may be wrong, but also he is taking the time to refute the oppositions to his perspective and defend his own statements.
4) Finally to Mr. PaulNoonan: You strike me as someone who is more intelligent than the point your comment makes. If you will, please tell me how you could be so misguided as to believe that there is only one sentence in the entire Christian Bible that warns against or forbids homosexuality? Secondly, questioning the toleration that our dear moderator Mr. Lucas has shown is of rather poor value. As I have said before, Mr. Lucas did not say that he advocated prison for alternative lifestyles, rather he said that there is a country that has done so and he is wondering whether the U.S. is headed in that same direction. Rather than attacking this man for shining a light on the slugs under the rock, we should assist him in removing the rock in order that our light might so shine and the slimy characters of this nation and his college may be eliminated. Thank you all for your patience in reading this and I hope more SoulForce people are referenced here by their website.

gnothi seauton said...

Lucas,

You seem too busy complaining about "tolerance" and "charity" to notice that some people - notably your first poster - actually overlooked the egregious content of your original post and asked a fair question. Seeing as how the "offensive" horse has been beaten nearly to death, I'll take up where he left off.

First of all, how do you justify a secular state enacting laws based on the personal religious beliefs of some citizens?

Do you propose instead that the state should not be secular?

Is that proposition not un-Constitutional?

If you do maintain that the state should remain secular, how do you justify the creation of laws based on morality?

Should all laws pertain to moral matters?

Should all moral matters be codified in law?

If not, where do you make your distinction or draw your line?

Should laws regarding moral matters possess a neutral or secular justification as well? Or is the morality of the issue justification enough?

Please elaborate.

PS - I am both a Christian and a PHC alumni. I believe homosexuality is wrong - in that it should not be condoned by the Church, but also should not be regulated by the State. I reached my position by, like yourself, seeking to be consistent on all counts.

Lucas said...

Lucas,

You seem too busy complaining about "tolerance" and "charity" to notice that some people - notably your first poster - actually overlooked the egregious content of your original post and asked a fair question. Seeing as how the "offensive" horse has been beaten nearly to death, I'll take up where he left off.

Please look again. He didn't post a questions. Just thoughts.

First of all, how do you justify a secular state enacting laws based on the personal religious beliefs of some citizens?

Some areas are outside of the purview of science. How you defend these beliefs will always be religious in nature.

Do you propose instead that the state should not be secular?

If you mean that the state should establish a state church or religion then, no. However that does not keep me from defending what I believe from a biblical perspective.

Is that proposition not un-Constitutional?

No. It says that you can't ESTABLISH a religion. It never says you can't use the bible as the foundation for the beliefs that you advocate. You can say that we should do something because Lock said it. That is what you believe, just as much as I can say the bible says it.

If you do maintain that the state should remain secular, how do you justify the creation of laws based on morality?

"remain secular" would not be the way I would define it. Most of the secular individuals today hold to strong religious beliefs whether they admit it or not. Our nation is established and ruled by the Constitution, and to defend that the Constitution or laws are based or not based off of a standard like the bible should be as a legitimate as any other authority.

Should all laws pertain to moral matters?

No. Speed limits might have a moral basis but are not really "moral." I think we should have 70mph but I don't think so because it is moral.

Should all moral matters be codified in law?

No. Only those who practice evil according to Romans 13. That is the outward visible actions that the government can determine to be immoral.

If not, where do you make your distinction or draw your line?

See above.

Should laws regarding moral matters possess a neutral or secular justification as well? Or is the morality of the issue justification enough?

I would be interested to understand was is a "neutral" or "secular justification". For moral laws, I believe that empirical evidence will always conform to the truth just as the universe conforms to the other laws of nature, but for me the bible is enough.

Please elaborate.

PS - I am both a Christian and a PHC alumni. I believe homosexuality is wrong - in that it should not be condoned by the Church, but also should not be regulated by the State. I reached my position by, like yourself, seeking to be consistent on all counts.

Cool. Shoot me an email sometime and we should talk about this more. lpillman at gmail.com

Lucas said...

Anonymous:

I am concerned for the women who get raped and are the objects of sexual abuse. I helped out in the ways I could a center that helped those types of people.

The reason they don't get as much attention as you say is because there aren't the same number of vocal groups saying such things are acceptable. Not only acceptable but as bigots and evil those who disagree. They want to redefine marriage. I want marriage left alone. It is important to remember who is picking the fight.