Homosexuality vs. Freedom of Religion
Politics
| November 30, 2003
| Tim
As I remarked yesterday, freedom of religion is the touchstone of every other fudamental right. Freedom of religion, or, more broadly, freedom to change and express one's convictions about the configuration of the universe and it's creator (or lack thereof) preceeds every other right.
In one sense I believe all rights can only be protected by a religious assumption: I have observed that other basic human rights have only long existed in places which have recognized that these rights are endowed by a creator and are thus inalienable, rather than granted by some human or collection of them, who can just as easily revoke them. (So it is no accident that countries founded on atheistic philosophies have such consistently appalling human rights records.)
Conversely, if one is not free to change one's mind about God and the universe, how can one further expect to be free to speak one's convictions (freedom of speech, of the press) and assemble with others of like or differing convictions?
In previous posts, I've pointed to examples where the issue of homosexuality has been used in Canada and public schools to abridge freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In Canada, a man has served time in jail for placing an ad consisting only of bible verses which oppose homosexual relations.
And more recently, here in the U.S., a judge has used "protection of homosexuals" to abridge a woman's right to speak and practice her beliefs while raising her child. The Washington Times reports this interesting statement:
But the Rev. Phil Campbell of the Park Hill Congregational Church said that Dr. Clark's First Amendment rights should take a back seat to what he called "the best interests of the child."
"I believe those interests supersede one parent's freedom to practice her religion," said Mr. Campbell, who heads the Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage, which backs homosexual "marriage."
It's the Washington Times, so there's an obvious bias in their use of quotes around the word "marriage", yet this statement by Mr. Campbell is simply appalling: here's a clergyman who's basicly arguing that if a court finds some aspect of some religion objectionable, those with children can be prevented from practising such a faith.
Imagine, for a moment, that the shoe were on the other foot, and some judge believed that practicing homosexual sex (rather than speaking against it) was harmful to children. Would Mr. Campbell support a court order preventing him from contacting or preaching to children or parents of children because his own religious convictions, which include support for gay marriage, would be "harmful" in the court's eyes, to children?
Which is more "harmful"? (His term, not mine.) Speech which disagrees with homosexual conduct, or homosexual conduct itself? Leaving aside little things like medical evidence or psychological studies, the answer lies in one's convictions, about which we must be free to differ.
I argue folks like Mr. Campbell (perhaps unknowingly and inadvertantly) hope for a totalitarian state which can dictate what parents will be allowed to say to their children, but only as long as the beliefs of that state exactly mirror Mr. Campbell's own.
where i believe that the state should have no involvement in what parents teach to their children, i do disagree with parents teaching anti-homosexual sentiments to their children under the guise of religion and religious expression. in my opinion it falls under the same category as teaching hate against other minority groups such as blacks and jews. you would never consider teaching your kids that today without falling under considerable scrutiny from others so why use religion to help teach hate against gays?
i belive that everybody has the right to choose who they want to be with , even if its of the same sex.. it doesnt conscern the public so y must the public discriminate?... and plus if it makes people happy then y would u want to take that away from them
Actually it does concern the public. A lot of ppl I know who are ok with homosexuality will not be very happy if their own siblings or offspring turns out to be one. This behaviour is hypocritic IMO. If you are not ok with your son or daughter being gay, don't say you are ok with it at all.
And what if relegion forbids homosexuality? I'll teach my kids not to steal. Similary if homosexuality is against my relegion, i'll teach my kids that too.
When kids are adult, they are responcible for their own actions.
Now what is wrong with this?
How dare you American people tell me how to live, how to breathe, how to think, who I can marry or not marry. This country has no right to say such ideas. Where in the damn a**hole's head (BUSH) says that he can tell me where, what, when, why, who, or how I may live my life. What a bigot he is along with all his cabinet members and the half of the U.S. Senate and House Of Representatives. Look at these unintelligent individuals. Start off with the president (I use lower case for him b/c I have no respect for him) himself. Why out of all Presidents combined that he is the most hated man of all. No education whats so ever, no business skills at all, cannot do anything to make the U. S. happy, costs of goods are up, where there is no $$$, thinks his (love for god) is higher than my love for myself andanother man. Loses jobs for the American people, lets our country get attacked, and get this trys blaming every idea he does with some half a** story that makes people believeis true and turns out to be false. His own cabinet like condoleezza rice has no idea what the hell she is doing with economy, the country, or foreign affairs. Tell me when these people like rice, bush, rumsfeld, powell, chaney and others like these ingrates asked if I or even the american people wanted these ideas embraced in our country. But you have to remember that myself being gay does also bring the idea that american people cannot and will not tell me if i may love, like, kiss, have sex, marry or other such ideas with the same sex. Teach your kids to love one another... homosexuals, blacks, women, and other racial backgrounds. I challenge the unitelligent president to face me to answer my questions in why his beliefs are better than mine. My mother does not like the fact that I am gay, BUT she loves me for who I am and what I am trying to become. I work hard, I go to school, I help others when needed, I am a loving family memeber, friend, and companion. My ideas are ones to accept all for who they are,but not when they want us wiped off the face of the earth and challenged just b/c you do not agree with it due to your daily beliefs. Money is not power... it is the voice who challenges the one with the money who has power. And far as I am conserned president bush I am not one to do this seriously b/c I know how this government of yours works... challenges anything in your way... but drop dead. Do this country a favor and take your beliefs and shove them up your a** where you will do no harm to no one else emotionally, physically and most of all, period. Remember this tho... I am not a threat to you or anyone... I am a threat tho to you as far as your beliefs. I could not hurt a fly... I do not wish you harm... but in the constitution it says where government fails to bring justice and peace to a country we have the right to over throw that individual or individuals who have ruined this country like you and your cabinet and terrible bigot minds of your family. My name is Zeb Kilgore I am gay and I am a REAL citizen of the U. S. one who does not lie to his country men why we are going to war or why we do such ideas to hurt others. If you do not get this message clear enough let me spell it out for you. NO ONE LIKES YOU OR WANTS YOUR BIGOT IDEAS IN THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU GO TO HELL. Thats what the bible says. Believe in a god and you will be loved. It does not say committ one sin and you will go to hell even if it is the worse sin. Take care, thanks for the time to speak... and most of all, wheather I am heard or not is not the issue but the issue of being a voice out there which is stronger than a crowd of no coherent voice.
Thanks
Zebadiah Kilgore
You know that Leviticus, which has a few often cited verses against homosexuality, also says that one should be put to death if you wear clothing of two fibers or eat shellfish. The bible also condones selling your daughters into slavery. Doesn't it seem as though some issues are being overlooked?
There is also an ever growing mountain of evidence to show that people are genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to one sex or the other. Animals of every kind are also homosexual. If animals are just following their instincts and being homosexual.... then it is obviously not a choice people make consciously.
And while to go against your instincts is possible, it's really painful. You can make yourself not follow the instinct to eat... but after a while your body gives you incredibly pain in an attempt to make you feed it. Repressing yourself in other ways is probably very difficult too.
Justin,
Out of the three points your explicitly make in the next quote, you're wrong about five of them. Which is pretty impressive for such a short paragraph:
You know that Leviticus, which has a few often cited verses against homosexuality, also says that one should be put to death if you wear clothing of two fibers or eat shellfish. The bible also condones selling your daughters into slavery.
The first error you made was apparently to blindly believe what other people told you.
The second error is that you claimed Levitcus says "one should be put to death" if one wore different types of clothing. There is indeed an instruction to the Jews not two weave from two different kinds of cloth. But it doesn't warrant the death penalty. In fact, no penalty at all is proscribed.
Your third error is that you claimed eating shellfish warranted the death penalty. Again, you are wrong, it did not. Leviticus doesn't equate the eating of shellfish with homosexuality. See here for details.
Your fourth error was the bit about it being legal to sell your daughers as slaves. Leviticus teaches the exact opposite:
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you... Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. (Lev 25:39-42, excerpts)
Israel did have a system of "slavery" but it was closer to "indentured servitude", where service was temporary. The above verse explicitly forbids selling any fellow person (including one's daughter) into slavery.
And the fifth: You are engaging in a straw man argument here by implying that people oppose homosexuality primarily because of Leviticus. Also addressed at the previous link.
There is also an ever growing mountain of evidence to show that people are genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to one sex or the other.
Actually there is no such evidence of any sort: all research I know of came up empty, or even implied the opposite: that there was no "gay gene". If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post a link here.
Animals of every kind are also homosexual. If animals are just following their instincts and being homosexual.... then it is obviously not a choice people make consciously.
It's true that many (not all) kinds of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. So what? Many kinds of animals also eat their children. Does that mean that if a human mother ate her children (or husband) we could then conclude she was "just following her instincts" and it was "not a choice she made consciously"?
People have volition control over many more things than animals do. In fact, we don't generally view animals as capable or moral choice, so the argument is a bit strange. Did you know that many animals also have multiple sexual partners? So I guess that you're arguing we shouldn't blame a man who cheats on his wife -- he had no choice, right?
There is the kind of moronic thinking you end up spouting when you let the world be your moral guide.
And while to go against your instincts is possible, it's really painful...
Hey, wait a minute. You can go against your instincts? I thought you just said that we had NO CONSCIOUS CHOICE in these areas! Like my heartbeat, for example -- that's not something I can consciously choose. It just happens.
Yes, of course, failing to give your body what it desires is "painful", or at least inconvenient. So what? When you're mad, it's difficult to not deck the person who's acting like a jerk. But part of being civilized is fighting those natural urges. Otherwise we'll be screwing anyone or anything, stealing everything, and killing everyone who casts a sidelong glance at us.
You can make yourself not follow the instinct to eat... but after a while your body gives you incredibly pain in an attempt to make you feed it. Repressing yourself in other ways is probably very difficult too.
"Is probably"? Did you know that there are people who go years without having sex? It's not much like eating, friend.
I know people who have had only one sexual partner in their lifetime. I don't know anyone who's only had one meal, or eaten one kind of food.
Dear Zebadiah Kilgore,
Why do you blame Bush for everything and claim no one wants his 'bigot' ideas? He was elected for presedent twice, so obviously, you have your facts wrong. If one man is elected more than once, someone clearly agrees with his ideas. I also disagree with the ideas of Mr. Bush, but I have enough common sense to realize it is not all his fault. He is no dictator like Hitler or Stallin. He was voted in and could have just as easily been voted out, but not enough people disagreed with him to overrule him.
And why would he be going to hell? You claim you wish him no harm, but you wish him to hell? I'm not religious, but hell seems to be harmful. And what exacly has he done wrong so that he deserves to go to hell? Your quote after you say he is going to hell is 'love god and he will love you back' but how do you know Mr. Bush does not love God? And it seems a bit hipacritical to bring the bible up against Mr. Bush when you are defying God yourself. 1) You are gay which I am pretty sure is frowned upon in the bible, 2)Your not God, so who are you to decide who goes to hell, and 3) You are bashing Bush when I know your God would want you to be tolerent, patient, and kind.
I was also very offended by the way you started off your comment. 'How dare you American people tell me how to live, how to breathe, how to think, who I can marry or not marry. This country has no right to say such ideas.' Starting it off with 'how dare you Americans' makes it seem as if you are blaming us all, when most of us have no say in government policies or the way you live your life. THat is harsh and I ask you to rephrase. Your second sentence is even more offensive then the first. This country does have the right to say such ideas. You live in America, you live by American policies, laws, and government. If you dont like it you have two options: Suffer in silence, or leave the country. If you keep posting comments like this, harrassing the American government, I'm afraid you are going to be consided an enemy of the state. Do you know what happens to enemies of state?
I do not mean to offend you, but you have offended me deeply. Please watch what you say and have tolerance.
Best Wishes,
Kayla
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Semi-Annual Crime and Guns Article |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Wesley Clark: Liar? »
|
where i believe that the state should have no involvement in what parents teach to their children, i do disagree with parents teaching anti-homosexual sentiments to their children under the guise of religion and religious expression. in my opinion it falls under the same category as teaching hate against other minority groups such as blacks and jews. you would never consider teaching your kids that today without falling under considerable scrutiny from others so why use religion to help teach hate against gays?
Posted by: melissa on April 26, 2004 11:07 AM