This should be a good Sunday post. One of our liberal commenters, Jon, posted his comment in relation to a previous short post titled On Transgender Sports & “Pride” Month. See the bottom of that post for Jon’s first comment and my reply which will put the comment below in context. I started to reply in the comments section but thought this deserved a post of its own.
Jon: Your right, this ruling is from an international organization. What I am referring to is the GOP’s war on LGBTQs and other Christian Law items. The GOP is doing their best to turn this country into a Theocracy. The latest is the SCOTUS Roe vs Wade decision. Why do you consider it OK to impose Christian Law on everyone? Aren’t you one of those that scream about Sharia Law being imposed on people in this country? Why do you feel that you can impose your preferences on others?
Mike: Hi Jon and thanks for your comment. In this post I will attempt to show the following main points:
- There is no “war on NNs” by the GOP.
- Decisions on social issues that have potential moral implications are not decided on the basis of Christian Law.
- America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
- The imposition of preferences through the legislative and judicial process is what a Republic is intended to accomplish.
There is no “war on NNs” by the GOP
On the subject of the GOP and NNs (nonnormative), there are many NNs that are in the GOP. I’ve mentioned before that you should watch Gutfeld! on FOX News. If you did you would know there are many NNs that are in the GOP. Here is one link with 28 of them. FOX News even hired Caitlyn Jenner. There are many more as that list is from 2016 and it is not intended to be exhaustive.
My brother was an NN (RIP) and I knew his lovers and friends well. I could write a book on this subject. Some Gays think Trannys and other NNs are not right in the head. NNs are not a homogenous group. So, if you think NNs are not accepted by the GOP remember not all NN groups are accepted by other factions of the NN community. One would also have to explain Gays for Trump and the Walk Away movement that is led by NNs.
Decisions on social issues are not decided on the basis of Christian Law.
You seem to tie the GOP in with Christian Law. It is true that the GOP has many more Christians than the DNC according to Pew Research. I don’t want to get caught up in a theological debate. However, we have Christians that read these posts and I fully confess my faith in Christ. That does not mean I or most Christians believe in a Theocracy. Mormons are known for this See this link. So are Muslims, as you point out Sharia is their version of a Theocracy.
I do believe the things the Bible teaches when properly understood and put into action creates a better society. Maybe I should say when the teachings of the Bible are understood as I understand those teachings society would be better off. I cannot speak for others and their understanding. Chief among those teachings is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. We should also remain humble about our own sinful nature. This leads us to forgive others as we are forgiven. We should also be cautious about judging harshly. At the same time, we do make judgments. We must do so in order to create a structured society. This is the primary reason for laws, not just in America but everywhere. We see what happens when society breaks down and becomes unstructured. It isn’t good.
What I’m trying to say is equivocating Christians or Christian Law with the GOP is something that might offend 63% of your Democrat friends. If you look up how atheistic countries have dealt with NNs it is far worse than the USA ever was. The former Soviet Union is one example. Click here for details. I make this point because the Soviet Socialists were firm on atheism and further left than Bernie Sanders. That should be evidence enough that positions on NNs have zero to do with religion or political conservatism.
As you rightly point out, Sharia is a Theocratic system that would put NNs to death or at least put them in prison for years or life as well as whippings. In Africa, there are 32 countries that still criminalize homosexuality. Some still use the death penalty. Click here for details. Asia has quite a few laws against NNs as well. They represent Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Islamic religions. Click here for details. Of course, in the Middle East, Islamic Sharia includes the death penalty in some cases. Click here for details.
Where you are incorrect in your thinking is to somehow equate Christian Law, as you call it, with laws that touch moral things. Atheistic countries make laws that touch on moral things as I proved in the link to the former Soviet Union.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian values
You are correct that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and that heavily influences our laws. At the same time, those Christian values gave rights to all citizens, not just Christians, and Jews. It did this by recognizing that rights are God-given (Creator), not man-given (Kings, etc). We should all be aware of this clear statement from the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
However, this is significantly different from a Theocracy. Click here for the definition of theocracy.
I cannot be sure but I do often wonder if the founders were thinking about other religions besides the Judeo-Christian view. After all, if you know the history of America early on it was Christian, not Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. I suppose the reason we use Judeo-Christian today is that Christianity is a Jewish sect of sorts. In the same way, Buddhism has its roots in the Hindu religion. Islam was an attempt to reconcile Jews, Christians, and Pagans. It is considered to be an Abrahamic religion. Abraham pre-dated the Jewish tradition as he was before Moses. Now you know why the peace deal Trump & Kushner struck was called the Abraham Accords. Trump and Jared really should have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for that, but I digress.
I looked up when the various major religions first built meeting places in America. I find this very instructive when it comes to understanding America has been a Christian nation from the beginning (the 1500s).
- First Jewish Synagogue in America – 1763
- First Buddhist Temple in America – 1853
- First Islamic Mosque in America – 1934
- First Hindu temple in America – 1957
There was significant tension between Christian denominations in the 1700s and the writing of the Constitution. I think the Constitution wanted to move Americans into an understanding that we were open to various Christian views as that was the hot issue of the times. The word “religion” in those days referred to Christianity. Anything else was thought of as a Pagan or some other derivative of that word like Idolater or Heathan. You can read a good article at this link about the early Colonies.
Setting aside that argument, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has come to mean something different to the left. It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion as some suggest. The phrase “separation of church and state” was not in the Constitution and is misunderstood. If you want to read in-depth click this link. It simply protects the individual and the various religions from government overreach. Also, see Article 6. There is no religious test for a person wanting to hold public office.
Bottom line. When someone argues about law and religion in America it is done with the consent of the governed. If those who are governed follow Christian principles the law will reflect that. If this nation becomes a majority of some other religion or non-religion then it will reflect those principles. For more, you can watch this video from Mac & Mike.
The imposition of preferences
You asked: “Why do you consider it OK to impose Christian Law on everyone? Why do you feel that you can impose your preferences on others?” Congress makes the law. The Executive is supposed to carry out the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law in light of the Constitution. The imposition of preferences through the legislative, executive, and judicial processes is what our Republic is intended to accomplish.
There are remedies that are built into our system but they are slow. Republicans have long waited for a Supreme Court to have a majority that believes in the Constitution as Originalists. The Democrat or Liberal view sees it as a Living Constitution. See this link for clarification. Simply put, Originalists believe the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding “at the time it was adopted”. If it needs to be updated or changed there is a process for that outlined in Article 5. See this link. This is the process of Amendments. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. See this link.
I find your line of thinking curious. Don’t you see that if we do things your way then you are the one imposing your preferences?
About the Author: Pronouns are Doctor and Your Highness. Mike Kelly identifies as a person who holds Ph. D.s in Theology, Philosophy, Theoretical Quantum Physics, and Psychology and an M.C.S. in Web-Based Technology. Now doesn’t that make you feel stupid? I mean if you can identify as anything these days, why not have it all? 🙂