In Response To Social Conservatives
As per my previous essay, the following is a quote from Mr. Martin Davis. There is no question of his strong religious beliefs and how they affect his decisions about life and thus how society should be ordered. The question for society, whether of similar religious beliefs or not, is how government should be structured in order to take these beliefs into account. Without question, many people in the US, whether or not they consider themselves social conservatives, have similar beliefs, and for good reason. The good reason is that religious beliefs predate government as we know it today and were the basis of government. That is actually true today, although many, and my previous essay on this subject tends in that direction, would have us believe otherwise. But let us proceed first with Mr. Davis’s letter to me in response to that essay:
“You are a human being. You expect to have your life protected by society until you die a natural death. Human life begins at conception. It is a continuum that civilized societies believe should be protected until natural death because human life is important, sacred.
“Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, again, in civilized societies. Understand that civilized society is a historical anomaly, ushered in by Judeo-Christian culture. If you reject Christianity (the fulfillment of Old Testament theology), then of course murder and sexual license and any human activity become just that, human activity – not right or wrong behavior, just behavior.
“Dostoyevsky wrote in ‘The Brothers Karmazov’: “if there is no God then are not all things permissible?” The thing is, you can reject the concept of God, totally ignore Him, but He is exactly who He says He is and this is His creation, governed by Him according to His rules, which you ignore at your own peril. I found this out the hard way and I can’t tell you how thankful I am that Christ loved me enough to discipline me and welcome me into His loving arms. Thanks for letting me comment on this. I know it is important to you. You have been a true friend for a long time and I sincerely hope you can one day experience the true life found in a relationship with Christ,
Your Friend,”
If we start at the beginning of how governments are formed, then, as Mr. Davis writes, we first expect society to protect us. In fact, that is the basic reason for societies, being arrangements for mutual benefit among a specific population. Understanding that, it would be impossible to write the rules of government without taking into account the religious beliefs, in a more generic term, the morality, of the society. Understanding this one can understand that the concept of individual rights is actually a religious belief, that man has rights unto himself, “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”.
However, again as Mr. Davis points out, society also has responsibilities beyond protecting the rights of the individual. The basic function of society, and thus government, is to protect the society and its continuation, not the individual. Toward that end would be prohibitions on behaviors contrary to the positive interests of society. The list here is long as the interests of society are diverse. Sloth and gluttony come to mind, as both are individual behaviors which affect the long-term interests of society. And this is where social conservatives find the right to object to abortion, homosexuality, etc. Their objections stem from two places. One is the objection to behaviors which are detrimental to the long-term health of society. Thus while individuals have “…certain unalienable Rights…” those rights are in fact limited to behaviors which enhance the long-term health of society. The Second is scriptural proscription and, not surprisingly, the two coincide.
The problem we have today is that our society is no longer inhabited by one religious group with a single moral code. There are many differences in beliefs, but even at the writing of the US Constitution there were substantial differences in beliefs which the framers tried to take into account. The problem we have today is at 90 degrees of what the framers had. Then they had a multitude of religious beliefs, no one of which could they allow to take precedence over others. But the beliefs were of Judeo-Christian basis and not so extremely difficult to harmonize. Today we have many who object to this heritage and belief system yet want the benefits it produced. One of the terms used to describe these objectors is secular humanism. The definition of secularism is: “…indifference to religious considerations.” As these non-believers exist concurrently with those of Judeo-Christian belief, the question becomes one of how to decide upon right and wrong, good behaviors and bad.
Secular humanists would have all religious beliefs eliminated from government. Yet without those beliefs there would be nothing to base government ideals and functions upon. In fact it would be impossible to have a government of the people without the rules and strictures of that government being based in the morality, the religion, of the people. Nonetheless, people cry out for individual rights which are in conflict with the morality of a large percentage of the population. Homosexuals demand equal treatment. They want to be married yet, as Mr. Davis points out, the Judeo-Christian heritage on which this country is based allows no protections for this group and actually works to discourage their behavior.
In making demands for equal treatment homosexuals often make comparisons with racial civil rights and equality. There is no comparison. The one was inequality based on skin color. The one in question is based on behavior. The only issue is how society arrives at government sanctions of individual behavior. We return to the question: how can the major moral/religious differences in the two groups be reconciled?
Should the religious beliefs of the social conservatives be dismissed? With what is it replaced? How do these secular humanists determine right and wrong without an overriding theology? Is there some common philosophy to which they subscribe which demands certain behaviors and proscribes others?
It seems our society devolves. Various observations will show the deterioration of a common goal and the homosexual agenda is but one. But it is an important ‘canary in the coal mine’. The demands of the homosexual activists are equal treatment under the law. This demand requires a complete reversal of the beliefs of those who established the society, the country, in that particular area. It is an abdication of moral stricture based on society’s cultural norms. It is the elevation of individual rights over the rights of the whole. This in itself is a peculiar position as we pretend to subject ourselves to democratic simple majority rule in so many cases. Yet where a minority group cries foul, the whole of the experiment must be held in suspension while the individuals of the minority group seek equality and redress. Each cries foul; they each complain that the whole has not treated them fairly and equally. Yet it is the whole that made the society of which they gain their individual rights which has allowed them the right, the position from which to protest. It is the curse of the experiment.
By giving individuals rights, we gain individuals, each of his own moral/religion that will give no authority to the whole. But it is the whole that must survive, not the individuals. Individuals must learn their rights are dependent upon the health of society. The purpose of government is to maintain the whole of society, not individuals. When we make the whole of society suffer in order to pacify the whine of each individual, there will be no society. Government will be a farce. It becomes obvious the social conservatives are right (pun intended).
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=3897
