my socks don't fit

Wednesday June 25, 2008 at 13:55

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”

—

Barack Obama (via azspot:squashed:rhodyram:soupsoup) (via seriouslythough) (via julyshewillfly)

I’m sorry. But Barack Obama is just wrong. That isn’t what Democracy demands at all. Democracy doesn’t demand that you abandon your personal values to achieve universal goals. The beauty of Democracy is that it allows all points of view a voice. It doesn’t ask those points of view to meld into one voice. In fact, if all the voices are forced to speak as a single voice, that is the opposite of Democracy. How many of you have “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism” bumper stickers?

As a Christian, I can accept that my views will be “subject to argument” but I am still within my rights to reject those arguments (or, gasp…. even ignore them). I don’t ask that you believe what I do. But I demand that you respect my right to believe what I do. You may think I’m wrong, but I have a Constitutional right to be wrong.

This idea that our beliefs can somehow be separate from the policies we pursue is idiotic. Using Obama’s example, if my values say that abortion is wrong, it’s ludicrous to think that I would wish not to see that value implemented as public policy. I do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but its not just a list of do’s and don’ts. That’s a strawman argument. Only shallow faith would believe something simply because “God says so.” Believers also see the reasons why God says the things He says. He knows what’s best for us in the long run. They’re not just rules and regulations. It’s an instruction manual for life.

God knows that there are consequences when we live lives in a manner in which everything is disposable, including people. He knows that there are emotional consequences to a flippant regard for life and these are the arguments that anti-abortion advocates have been expressing since the beginning of the debate. However, that argument has been summarilly dismissed since it is seen as “just coming from the Bible”. It matters not that there is strong evidence that abortion is emotionally damaging to women. It matters not that a culture that promotes abortion is more prone to sexual promiscuity. Maybe God was right all along?

Look at it this way… If I tell my 2 year old, “don’t climb on top of the refrigerator,” I am imposing a directive on him which he can choose to heed or ignore. He has free will. If he trusts that I have his best interests at heart, he may learn (in time) that that rule is really just to protect him and not because I’m a tyrant.

That’s the way God works. He just knows what’s best for us. He doesn’t instruct us to value human life because he wants 13 year old girls having babies. He instructs us to value human life because He knows that if we do, we will learn to be personally responsible for our actions. Even when it’s inconvenient.

(via complicatedshoes)

a good example of this is the recent notion of a ‘secular’ sabbath: turning off all electronic communication for a day. the fourth commandment was such a good idea that even (some) atheists love it! this is the thrust of God’s communication with humanity, instruction based on what’s best for us, not what necessarily we like (though ultimately valuable) or is reasoned to be right (which is, at best an educated guess) at the time.

tim keller has a good breakdown of the debate which basically hinges not on the beliefs themselves, but on the value and/or validity of one’s personal beliefs (religious or not) in public policy.

This post was reblogged from Complicated Shoes.

74 notes & Comments (View)