The modern Fundamental Church has a real tiger by the tail when it comes to gay rights, marriage, and homosexuality in general. On one hand, there is the belief or thought that being gay is nothing more than a life style choice. To say it a different way, it is a free will choice. Then if being gay is a choice, it is no different than someone choosing to smoke, drink, or any other vice that one might chose or that the Church might deem as an offense or a sin before God. If however, that is not the case and being gay is more of natural phenomena or genetics then Fundamentalist have a different problem on their hands. My intent is not to debate the validity of either view, but to look at the problem that each presents to the Fundamentalist.
The first problem in this two part essay is that of choice, which in the eyes of Fundamentalist makes it a sin before God. Depending on the Church or the denomination they will certainly quote a whole set of Scriptures and for the most part Scripture may be the only basis for their belief. This then makes it purely a religious concern. An atheists or agnostics certainly would not see it as an offense against God. To further complicate the matter not all Christian communities agree on the issue. Some denominations are going as far as to allow homosexual priests and clergy. So, clearly this is not a simple black and white issue even within the Christian community at large.
When it comes to religion, America is one of the most pluralistic nations in the world. You can find everything from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and everything in between. All of these will have varying beliefs concerning homosexuality. As a pluralistic society whose religious view or belief should override everyone else’s concerning this or anything else for that matter? Can it be as simple as a democratic vote or is it a bit more complicated?
We can look to the 17th century British philosopher John Locke (1634-1704) for some insight on how to deal with this issue. For Locke, the government not the Church was not given the care of men’s souls. This was left solely in the hands of the individual. He would argue that the political leaders in charge should not limit the practice of another religious group for a very simple reason; the other group might be in charge one day and do the same. For example, what if this nation became predominately Wiccans or Druids? The Fundamentalist would not want their religious beliefs or practices prohibited by these groups.
It is also important to keep in mind, as Locke would argue, the only power that the government has is force. You cannot force someone to choose a religion even with the point of the sword. Under the threat of death, everyone would choose the religion only to save their life and not because they believed it. What makes this even more complicated is that everyone believes that they have the one and only true religion, which is a very good reason to keep the Church and State separate.
If one religious group manages to force its religious laws onto the land via the government, are we not repeating the history of intolerance and violence that went on in Europe? There was a period in time as the leadership changed in Europe so did the national religion. Many times this ushered in an era of Christian persecution against other Christians and kept the cycle of violence and hatred going. This leads us back to Locke and his view of the role of government. The government’s only concerns should be matters of defense, property, liberty, and health.
Part of the problem is that the religious Fundamentalist can only see good in whatever they do. Much like Charlemagne walking a town through the baptismal or to the gallows, it was for the good of individual and to serve the will of God. Again, I must agree with Locke, in that religion must be a passive force in the world so that conversion is genuine and any benefits or condemnations are gained voluntarily.
The Fundamentalist should reconsider their approach to this issue. If it is a choice and a sin, it would seem that a genuine conversion is what is needed to solve the problem. This would require action on their part to create disciples in a loving and non-violent way, but instead they have chosen to use the rule of law to enact their beliefs. All the while, some of their most vocal leaders are caught in the very sin that they have been preaching against. Obviously, some soul searching needs to occur.
So, if we come back to the issue of the freedom to choose, then we must allow these people the right to choose how they wish to live. As a society we must not step on or hinder their belief or their pursuit of happiness because another group disagrees with that belief based solely on a religious view. To do otherwise would place one belief system over another and risk creating a society of hate and prejudice. We should seek to build a society where we live peaceably with open and free discussion on the things that we disagree about and strengthen those that we do agree on.
No comments:
Post a Comment