![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.
Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest church in Kansas, pointed out to me what all Christians should know: "Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with." This put Jesus at odds with religious leaders, who believed they were sullied by associating with the "wrong" people.
Let's set aside for a moment that in our country ruled by its leftist judicial oligarchy, a man could go to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He said he'd bake one for the gay couple's birthday, for other holidays, etc. but he would not do it for their gay wedding. And he could GO TO JAIL for NOT BAKING A CAKE. And this MAKES SENSE to LIBERALS. I repeat: a man could GO TO JAIL for NOT BAKING A CAKE. ("It is not enough that you obey Big Brother, you must love him [by baking him a cake].")Set that lunacy aside and instead focus on the fact that "Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with." Well then: what follows is that he disagreed with their lifestyle and treated them with basic human dignity. Jesus did not aid and abet the tax collectors in ripping off the poor. He did not miraculously make a condom out of dirt and give it to the prostitute telling her to be sure to practice safe sex next time. When he did not sentence the adulterous woman to stoning he did not condone adultery--rather he told her to "go and sin no more." Helping with the wedding arrangements for a gay "wedding" ceremony would be to help someone thought to be sinning in their sinning. It was a clear violation of the baker's conscience. And unless you think the Bible, Christian tradition, and pretty much every great philosopher and thinker in every major religious tradition in the history of the world are wrong (and instead go with your own or our society's feelings from like, 5 minutes ago), the man's conscience was correct.
Jim Crow Laws for Gays and Lesbians? Are you kidding me? Jim Crow laws were laws mandating racial segregation. The laws forced people to be segregated. Those laws were a disgrace. But so are the current laws mandating that businesses can't refuse service on grounds of sexual lifestyle. Just as the government has no legitimate authority to mandate racial segregation, the government has no legitimate authority to mandate that a business can't discriminate on the basis of religious convictions. Perhaps Christians would do well to go to jail, if they must, to wake our country from its dogmatic slumber.
What I found so galling about the Powers article was just that line, "Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married."
ReplyDelete1. There's live, legitimate theological disagreement over whether that statement is actually true. One side (or both) may be *wrong*, but that doesn't make the disagreement any less real.
2. The government has no business wading into (1) and picking sides. None at all. It never seems to cross Powers' mind that whatever principle allows the government to pick sides in a theological dispute over gay weddings doesn't end with gay weddings (the concept of reasoning from "principles" rather than "feels" being largely lost on my generation).
3. Anyone who has ever referenced conservatives wanting to take us "back to the Dark Ages" over this issue or that should be terrified by Powers' suggestion that the government can go about enforcing theological orthodoxy. Refusing to pay for some else's contraception is not the second coming of the Inquisition. The government telling you that your religious beliefs about marriage are out of line with what your religion "really says" and ordering you to act in conformity therewith, is.
Excellent points, Phil-Will.
ReplyDelete"....conservatives wanting to take us "back to the Dark Ages""
To quote Nicholas Gomez Davila, " The thing that exasperates today’s Christian about the Middle Ages is Christianity."
FINALLY, someone ELSE on this blog! Congratulations Tullius, you have more than one reader. :) Welcome Phil-Will, welcome!
ReplyDeleteTullius, you should write a professional philosophical article entitled, "A Man CAN GO TO JAIL for BAKING A CAKE." I'll be Phil Review, Nous or even Phil Studies would be rioting to get a crack at that article. In fact, you shouldn't even write an article, just send them the title and ask if they would publish it!!!
Ever thought about sending this Powers person a personal email...to, you know, explain to her how being an idiot in print is, like, forever?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne outrageous bit from the Powers piece was her equating healing, feeding, and ministering to making a cake for a gay couple. There is an equivocation going on between the service that Jesus provided (and still provides, through his Church and his sacraments), and the service of baking someone a cake. They are quite different.
ReplyDeleteA howler was the "Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married," line. Even if it were true that Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married, it is equally true that it does not mandate the serving of gay couples. Powers' tone suggests that she thinks Christianity probably does mandate serving gay couples. Wrong.
This is the best sentence I've read in a couple weeks: "He did not miraculously make a condom out of dirt and give it to the prostitute telling her to be sure to practice safe sex next time. When he did not sentence the adulterous woman to stoning he did not condone adultery--rather he told her to "go and sin no more."
Good points, Anon. (Why anonymous? Worried about the Thought Police?)
ReplyDeleteYes, that is exactly why.
ReplyDelete