Hot Seat: Morality and Governance

[Chase]

Hunter: Paul, I've been... struggling with regards to morality...and government. The way I see somethings that some in the church see "obligatory" differ because of my experiences and my understanding about other people groups. For example, I know that the Christian conservative frames the word "marriage" with a different meaning than the perhaps the homosexual liberal - and that is where the conflict - thankfully - lies in most cases. If it's the government's role ... to say, uphold the morality of the country, does something like marriage fall under the tent for what is okay to be legislated on?

Paul: Well, Hunter, I think you understand that all laws come from - a - system of values and beliefs. That's the root of all legislation.

Hunter: Yeah, I know that much. That doesn't necessarily address the role of government regarding those laws though. All that does is point to the origin of the law.

Paul: Mmhm. From what I know historically, government's "getting-involved" with marriage in the first place [before homosexuality became a relevant issue] was to facilitate the formation of families. That alone is a morally justified from the Christian perspective because God wants us to live and live abundantly. God instituted the "first" family by creating Eve to be partner to Adam. ... I am with you though, in questioning the "moral percentage" of the same-sex marriage thing, and that's why I default to seeing it done "in fairness" instead. Because equality isn't necessarily a major equality point when it comes to reforming legislature Biblically , if one at all, I would then say that it's not government's place - at least from the standpoint of morality - to make that decision..

Hunter: Wait, you think that government -should- be able to legislate marriage, but not in the case of same-sex marriages, because it leaves the realm of being moral legislation?

Paul: -I- don't believe government has a place in "marriage" - from the theological perspective - at all. To me, marriage in the governance perspective is more about tax breaks and benefits. If we're looking at JUST financial implications of "marriage" - then I think there needs to be a reformed system of civil unions to where there isn't inequality involved. I also think that two men or two women, should they want to be together, should be able to apply for those benefits. As a Christian who defines "marriage" much different than I do a civil union - I would not want that to qualify as "marriage."

Hunter: Great minds think alike there. There's not a reason from the secular perspective out there that justifies being against same-sex couples being together at all. However, the Scripture very clearly lays out God's presence and cherishing in/of God-ordained unions, and the absolute opposite of unions such as same-sex unions where God's will is constantly being subverted. Uncle Sam's marriage and God's marriage seem to be an orange and a grapefruit. To some, they look absolutely the same, but the implications of biting into one and then the other are much different. I've been pushing for civil union equality for as long as I've known about them.

---

Cutting this excerpt from a discussion my mentor and I had on Friday night before going to a conference this weekend short, I was talking to him about the role of governance from the Christian perspective.

We came to the conclusion that without God, Christian conservative types don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending hetero-only marriage models. Absolutely do when it comes to abortion. And - much to my personal relief - absolutely don't when it comes to transgender issues.

There's also things we didn't talk about, like Birth Control, because we're just two dudes who will likely die single and won't have to worry about that kind of stuff.

---

I want to give you guys - a mostly liberal, secular bunch - the opportunity to grill me - a Christian guy who would call himself a conservative - on the role of government. I'll be giving my answers with regards to morality and hopefully with Scriptural basis along with policy jargon.

I won't promise - as I did with Paul - to agree with you all. Those of you that know me know I like to argue and often stand very, very lonely on these issues. However, I also won't promise to hold a militant conservative line either. There are things conservatives need to be challenged on with regards to their understanding of not only the role of morality in government, but Scripture themselves, and the implications of such challenges could mean they don't have the ability to defend their conservatism not just outside of the Bible - but at all.

With all further ado, please ask me whatever comes to your mind.

[mde2001]

I'm curious as to how you came to a conclusion that the religious right does have grounds to stand on when opposing abortion. From the way I see it, abortion should be a decision for an individual to make and it shouldn't be something that anyone who is not related to the embryo gets a say in. Knowing you, you probably have a better reason than the usual "they're murdering babies" rhetoric, but I am curious to know what it is. Also do you think this right to oppose applies to cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk?

[FairFamily]

An interesting notion which springs forward from the is that the government shouldn't involve itself with the christian mariage because it is different from household unions? Or at least that is what I could deduce from the excerpt. English is't my first language so sometimes it gets a bit too difficult. However the government is responsable for upholding moraltiy of the country. If elements come which might damage this morality they are allowed to act, religion is no exception. Does that mean they could/should change christianity? They can't/shouldn't, you are free to believe what you want, even if it is not in the same line as the morals of the country. They can however prevent you from acting on those believes, which is something I think is fair.In extreme they can ban christians from organizing and spreading their religion because it violates their laws. So basically they can try to strong-arm christians into change, which is something I personally aggree with.. What are your thoughts on this?

I also share the sentiments with mde2001 on abortion.

Edited October 10, 2016 by FairFamily

[Chase]

I believe that abortion should be offered in the following cases:

• A woman can prove without a shadow of a doubt that she has conceived from an instance of rape.

In this case, this -is- a choice issue. The woman didn't even put herself at risk and was forced against her will to have sex, therefore there was no decision at all made where conception was a plausible risk. The woman had her right to not have sex violated. Childbirth should not be a consequence of being a victim. I would hope cases where rape is proven are solved in a timely manner so that the legal abortion is done quickly.

• One life is assured to be lost (mother in the case of birthing the child; child as a result of abortion procedure).

This is a little stricter than "at-risk", but the honest truth of the matter is, "at-risk" is a very vague term that depending on the angle could qualify all expecting women. For example, a woman that planned to have a child, but didn't seek medical assistance from professional doctors and nurses. If the doctor indicates that "Ma'am, it's either you get this abortion, or you are forfeiting your life." - then that abortion is -again- part of a choice issue. That should be an available option.

And, that's it.

Biblically speaking, the issue of incest hasn't always been detrimental to the resulting child. In fact, early Jewish doctrine (We're talking things prior to the Exodus from Egypt) records humanity marrying relatives quite often. Historically, this would go on well into the Middle Ages well beyond Christ's period of time. Incest is discouraged - if I remember correctly - because it increases the chances of biological defects in children. When humanity was a much younger bunch of mammals, not only was that unavoidable, but human genetics were much more free of any defects to pass down.

Leviticus, part of the Jewish Law, is actually one of the earliest bits of historical advocacy against incest and is largely believed by Jews and Christians alike to be based on God's will for the Jews to do what was best for the human race. However, this is a direct order that men and women do not lie with their family members, NOT that they abort any offspring from doing so. The question then moves to defects as a whole.

From there, my value is simply that life trumps suffering. The other apparent thing that seems to be the defense of aborting the handicapped or defective unborn, is that they suffer from the umbrella belief that fetuses are NOT human. I don't think that there is enough evidence out there, for ANY fetus, to be dehumanized.

---

On the contrary, this dehumanization provides women with the ability to view this a personal choice between them and their bodies. If the fetus is not a human, it then becomes a question of pure autonomy as opposed to question of life and death.

This is largely misleading on behalf of the Pro-Choice community, because it officially has to remove the fetus from the equation to MAKE it an issue about women's rights. If the fetus is treated like a human being, the implications are changed. Suddenly, the fetus' father is justified to be a part in the decision making because the father is half-responsible for that conception.

This would make it a family affair and not an issue of women's rights. In a -fair- treatment of such issue, the fetus deserves equal representation as the mother. The issue then, is that the fetus is incapable of defending itself, and therefore often needs someone to speak on behalf of it. Father or unrelated.

My belief is that calling this an issue of women's rights is a foul wrought by even greater fouls of dehumanizing the unborn and exploiting a voter bloc by pitting it against a would-be voter bloc that doesn't have a say for itself.

---

First of all, that's a very good example of what I was worried about and struggling with, FairFamily, - the task of defending a regression of a Supreme Court case that has given people what they feel is "an alienable right" to be bonded together in marriage for the sake of upholding morality is, to say the least, uneviable.

I believe the upholding of morality falls more on the individual than it does on the government - who is also responsible for representing individuals who could care less about upholding morality/have a different point of view on morality. Therefore, I don't believe the government necessarily lives and dies on total moral obligation, and therefore I don't believe they need to strip free-exercise and influence Christianity or any other religion in any way.

It is undeniable however, that laws are born out of moral interpretation of values.

---

I also agree with you that - to an extent - people shouldn't be able to act out of their beliefs if it poses a genuine danger to the lives of others. The debate then becomes, of course, what constitutes danger.

[Chase]

Hey, I know this is double-posting, but after having to arm-wrestle the auth team to keep this thread here, I feel like in respect of my colleagues that I should clarify about the intent of this thread in it's own devoted post. Give me points if you need to, friends.

the discourse in this thread -might- be potentially disruptive and volatile in nature as we deal with topics people STRONGLY believe in. Because of this, my original hope for the thread was to cover a question and then "move on" to the next question as opposed to hold an argument or a discussion.

I do realize that it's possible that you would like to follow up my responses, PLEASE MESSAGE ME PRIVATELY with follow up. I promise I'll get back to you and keep in touch.

Think of this thread as a Q&A.