Statutes of Liberty (pt. 3 of 3): Christian Abolitionists
This is part 3 of 3 of our series, the Statutes of Liberty. I’ve been talking a lot about LGBT rights, and you can see that if you check out part 1 and part 2 (I highly recommend), but more broadly, most of this line of thinking applies to how Americans of various faith traditions can approach policy and politics. My interest in focusing on American Christians is twofold: (1) that’s the largest religious demographic of America, and (2) I’ve been a Christian for the last 8 years, so I feel especially comfortable speaking to that particular religious group. In fact, I feel a special responsibility to do so. There’s somewhat of a third point on helping Christians to think through their Christian Privilege, but I don’t know if I have as much time to make that connection, so I haven’t, explicitly, made those points as much.
Either way, I’ve been walking through these propositions concerning my full support for the liberties of LGBT Americans (the same, basic liberties that you and I probably enjoy without even thinking about it). In proposition 1, I made the point on the separation of Church and State, which is actually IDEAL for religious groups, Christians included. In proposition 2, I explicate how perspective taking and consideration seem to be underemphasized for most Christians as they think through American policy… indeed, some American Christians would qualify as Christian Supremacists, which is very different from being a Christian… and doesn’t really reflect the heart of the scriptures or Jesus. My hope is that those were at least as interesting as they sound.
I have my third and final proposition concerning faith and LGBT rights below.
Proposition 3: The focus on opposition of LGBT rights is both arbitrary and unusually narrow… I don’t think this does what you think it does.
Let’s start with the latter comment on it being unusually narrow. Take your pick of ANY major religion in the world.
The most common ones are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But to be clear, by some estimates, the world has 4,000+ different religions. Take your pick of ANY one of those 4,000 religions. Every single one of them describe things they believe to be right and things they believe to be wrong. Every single one of them outlines things they believe to be permissible and things they believe to be reprehensible.
Religions are about moral-based reasoning. They’re about demonstrating (or abstaining from) attitudes and behaviors that are deemed as commendable (or disreputable), whatever that may mean in the context of the religion in question. My impression is that would be true for every single one of those 4,000 religions.
Every single one of them…
So, please explain to me why American Christians feel so committed to showing their devotion to opposing same-sex marriage, but we really don’t have (and don’t really care to have) laws for most of the other things in the Bible… even some of the stuff that we might describe as “a big deal”.
There are lots of Christians who think it’s wrong to get tattoos (Leviticus 19:28). We’ve had tattoos in America since before the Civil War, in the mid 1800’s.
I’ve never once heard American Christians talk about abolishing tattoos. But 30% of Americans are estimated to have at least one. That’s a lot of people.
Body piercing is the same. It emerged in the late 1900’s. Lots of Christians think that’s wrong (particularly men getting their ears pierced). But there are millions of Americans with body piercings.
The Bible talks about the sanctity of our body (Romans 12:1; I Corinthians 3:16-17; I Corinthians 6:19-20). Why don’t we have laws limiting tattoos and body piercings? We tell people below the age of 18 that they need parental consent, but if it’s wrong in the Bible, having parental consent or being of legal age isn’t going to make it right. Having your parent’s permission, or reaching a particular age, won’t make something right unless it was wrong because of your parents or because of your age. And even if it isn’t wrong, the Bible still has scriptures about modesty (I Timothy 2:9; Proverbs 11:22), as well as scriptures about men looking like men and women looking like women (Deuteronomy 22:5). So, if God wants for us to be modest, how many tattoos is too many? And where are we allowed to get them? And given tattoos are more common among men than women, does that mean there should be a limit to how many tattoos women can get, because the Bible talks about women looking like women and especially encourages them to be modest in appearance.
What about alcohol?
It is illegal to drink and drive. But if you’re not operating a vehicle, and you’re not in public, being drunk is not illegal. Presumably, the reasoning there is as follows: when you’re drunk, for the most part, it only affects you. When you drink and then operate a vehicle, beyond posing a threat to your own safety, you also threaten the safety of others. And presumably, that’s why we have laws about being over the influence, right? You pose a big threat to yourself as well as others. But for all intents and purposes, if you get drunk at home, or in private, the government really doesn’t give a crap.
You’re allowed to do that. That is entirely within your rights.
But the Bible says that’s wrong. I don’t see anybody lobbying to make getting drunk (in private) illegal. And for the record, in the early 1900’s, we used to have a prohibition on alcohol… the US was a dry country: no buying, selling, or consumption of alcohol. For 13 years. So, before you dismiss my argument as ridiculous, making a law against getting drunk wouldn’t be the craziest law America has ever made concerning alcohol. In fact, by comparison, it would be pretty lax.
We’ve absolutely had more “radical” laws concerning alcohol in the past.
What about sexting? Pornography? Premarital sex?
As far as I can tell, we don’t have laws against any of those, albeit with the rise of child trafficking, and sex trafficking, it looks like there’s been more lobbying against the porn industry. But for the most part, sexting, porn, and sex out of wedlock are all legal, and although Christians seem to generally disapprove, they’re not seeking any major government interventions. They don’t see the need to takeaway other people’s rights to sext, use porn, or participate in sex out of wedlock.
Can you imagine how that conversation would go?
“I want to make sure that NOBODY in America is allowed to send or receive a dick pic, not just my son or daughter… unless they’re married, then it’s okay… but otherwise, ZERO dick pics.”
I believe some dating apps have now created restrictions on sending unsolicited dick pics. And I think a few countries, too, have some laws about unsolicited dick pics. Even in the US, a few states (Connecticut and Louisiana), have laws about dick pics, but these are only intended to protect minors, as there are particular concerns with child pedophilia, child pornography, etc. But a grown man can send a dick pic to a grown woman that he’s casually involved with, and the American government doesn’t really have anything to buffer that. “It’s your right to do so,” the government and Christians say.
And how about divorce?
The Bible says God doesn’t like divorce (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:2-12). And divorce is interesting because it, too, is part of the institution of marriage, reflecting, quite literally, God’s plan for creation. So, sexuality and divorce are both mentioned in the Bible, but Christians seem way more outspoken about one of those than the other. From what I can tell, Christians aren’t trying to create laws to interfere with how many times someone can be divorced, or guidelines to make sure they know the person really well before they get married, or requirements on going to a marriage counselor before any divorce paperwork can be signed. In spite of what the Bible says, as far as I can tell, Christians don’t feel compelled or motivated to lobby their government on laws or policy concerning the 780,000 divorces that happen every year. By my estimates, that 780,000 is over FIFTEEN TIMES the number of LGBT persons who marry ever year, about 50,000. Even so, for whatever reason, Christians feel perfectly fine inserting themselves and saying they don’t think LGBT persons should be allowed to exercise their right to be married, because of the Bible. But people exercise their right to divorce every single day, and we never think twice about using the Bible to police them about it.
I, 100%, stand by what I said.
In light of the entirety of the Bible, this interest in opposing LGBT rights seems unusually narrow… and I don’t think it’ll accomplish what you think it will. It reminds me of that scripture in the Gospel (John 8:1-11) where there’s a woman caught in adultery, and Jesus tells the religious leaders, “He who’s without sin, cast the first stone.” And nobody threw any stones. They all left, beginning with the oldest. Importantly, the fact that Jesus wouldn’t permit them to pummel this woman to death with rocks didn’t change the fact that what she did was out of keeping with The Torah (the religious text of this era). The Torah was written LONG before 30AD, when this episode took place. There’s NOTHING that occurred on that day that would have changed what was already in the Torah. What Jesus was drawing attention to was, “ALL of you have done things that are out of keeping with the Torah, so why isolate this woman?” After Jesus’ point, these men realized they couldn’t condemn the woman for what she did, because they had many, many things they were guilty of, too. And presumably, the oldest left first because they probably violated the Torah the most by virtue of living the longest.
The response of American Christians concerning the liberties of law-abiding, tax paying citizens should be very similar… the problem is, it’s the opposite. It’s almost like American Christians think, “We don’t need laws about sexting, or tattoos, or getting drunk, or divorce, but we need to make sure LGBT people can’t be married, because that’s a REALLY big sin!” Or, “Making same-sex marriage illegal won’t inconvenience MY life, so let’s double down on it because of our wholesome Christian values.” Or, “It’s perfectly normal to sit in front of a computer and watch two or three people have sex with each other, but homosexuality is completely unnatural! We need to protect America from that by making same-sex marriage illegal!”
If we really stopped to think about this, I think we’d see all the ways in which this logic doesn’t particularly make sense.
The reason why we take this narrow focus, I think, is because both of our major political parties (the Democrats and Republicans) have used this as a topic to advance their political agenda… so Democrats say, “vote for me, I’ll give rights to LGBT people”. And the Republicans say, “Vote for me, I stand for Christian values, and I’ll protect America from the LGBT agenda.” But that singular focus perpetuates this notion of a hierarchy of sin, because both of these groups take a very, very narrow approach concerning how they can use religion to integrate topics into their platform and appeal to various faith groups (or irreligious groups) in America.
It’s a REALLY slippery slope to say we need a law about this 1 topic in the Bible, but we don’t need laws for the other 99.
In general, if it doesn’t directly hurt you or anyone else, or undermine American liberties, mind your business. Examples. The Bible says people shouldn’t get drunk (Ephesians 5:18), but if people do it at home, they’re exercising their rights and not really hurting anyone else. And their getting drunk at home isn’t infringing on your liberties or anyone else’s. So, mind your business and don’t worry about it. As a contrasting example, if a guy rapes a woman, that’s nothing like the previous example, because he’s doing something and it clearly hurts another person and undermines their liberties. Two people of the same sex getting married doesn’t take anything away from you (i.e. religious freedom), it doesn’t hurt anyone, nor does it undermine anyone’s American liberties. If you disagree with something, that doesn’t mean people don’t have a right to do it.
Things happen almost every day that I disagree with, and I don’t have laws for almost any of them.
People send me spammy messages on Facebook.
People spend hundreds of dollars on Christmas gifts and end up several months in debt.
People go to school out of state, or at a private university, when it would be much cheaper (and sometimes more responsible) to go to school in state.
People do one-night stands with people they barely even know.
I receive junk mail that I never expressed interest in.
People share a Facebook account with their significant other.
People fly on Spirit Airlines and Frontier.
People join pyramid schemes. PYRAMID SCHEMES? ARE YOU SERIOUS? HOW IS THAT NOT ILLEGAL???
People take job offers and then renege on them.
People cheat on their spouses.
People make it rain in the club… we could have used that to end world hunger. People, literally, just THROW MONEY in the club.
I’ll stand by what I said… people do things I don’t like or I don’t agree with almost every single day. And most of the things I dislike or disagree with aren’t illegal. People deserve to be able to exercise their liberties, even if I think, personally, it’s a terrible idea.
If it doesn’t directly affect you, honestly, all you have to do is mind your business and stay hydrated. So, yes, I do think American Christians’ singular focus on LGBT rights is unnecessarily narrow.
Now let’s talk about this other point, “an arbitrary focus”. This one’s interesting. As far as I can tell, the Bible, literally, DOES NOT MENTION same-sex marriage.
Not once.
Not a single time.
It’s not in there.
Now, it does talk about sexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; I Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1:26-27). It does not talk about same-sex marriage, at all. So, if you think it’s wrong to live a homosexual lifestyle, then why singularly focus on same-sex marriage? If that’s really how you feel about homosexuality, then you should make homosexuality illegal. If your issue is with homosexuality, focusing on same-sex marriage is a very roundabout way to reflect that. I mean after all, if you believe in using your religious views to control what other people are allowed to do, then you might as well just make homosexuality illegal, instead of just focusing on the marriage part.
Seriously. If that’s how you feel, then abolish homosexuality.
You see why this is a really slippery slope? This line you’ve drawn in the sand… this hill that SO MANY Christians are willing to die on… it’s arbitrary. If you think it’s wrong, it’s not wrong because LGBT people are getting married… it’s wrong because you believe an LGBT lifestyle is out of keeping with your Christian views, whether those persons get married, cohabitate, maintain a dating relationship with someone they love, or live single and date casually. If you think it’s wrong, it’s going to be wrong either way and marriage is an arbitrary line in the sand… in essence, you’re saying, “Even though I don’t agree with it, I respect your right to pursue relationships with people of the same sex… but marriage is going too far! Now you’re REALLY getting carried away, and we need to send a loud and clear message that you’re not allowed to do that!”
Are you kidding me? This is absurd. And I stand by what I said: this line that you’ve drawn in the sand is completely arbitrary.
Now, you may be reading my comments and think, “you can’t abolish being gay!”, but that’s actually false. You absolutely shouldn’t abolish being gay. But you definitely can.
I’ll show you.
There are approximately 190 countries in the world, and it’s ILLEGAL to be gay in 70 of them (as of May 2020). You read that correctly. SEVENTY. That’s over a third. But there’s more… in 12 of those countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In case you’re wondering, most of those 70 countries are in Africa and the Middle East… these are parts of the world that, by most accounts, are quite religious, and people take matters of faith VERY seriously. So, I don’t know how you feel about the death penalty (and that’s a different topic, so I won’t touch on that), but at least as far as faith and politics goes, it looks like these countries share your views on being in opposition of LGBT rights. And it’s ironic, because I think most Americans will hear this and say, “Oh my gosh, those countries are so cruel… they’re so oppressive… I can’t believe they would be so intolerant. SAD FACE!” But we, literally, have American Christians that are basically doing the same thing. The only difference is they’ve drawn an arbitrary line in the sand at marriage. Does that really make you feel that much better about yourself, knowing that you’re still undermining civil rights and liberties?
In essence, these American Christians are saying, “I don’t think you should be allowed to be married, but I don’t want to take away your right to live a homosexual lifestyle, because that would be a bit too authoritarian and oppressive… that would be too extreme… this is America, and I don’t want to infringe on your freedom.”
Ummmm… okay. But I’ll be honest with you, that doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense because if you believe it’s wrong because of the Bible, then that means it’s wrong either way and marriage is an arbitrary line in the sand.
Again, part of why we’re here is because both Democrats and Republicans have used this topic as a means of advancing their political agenda. But it’s a bit paradoxical for an American, Christian, politician, or whoever to say, “It’s too authoritarian of the government to take away people’s liberty to pursue romantic relationships with people of the same sex, but it’s NOT too authoritarian of the government to prevent people of the same sex from getting married.” In your mind, is one of those really that much better than the other? Policing people on their sexuality and policing people on who they marry both come from a similar school of thought. That’s why interracial marriage was illegal for most of American history: there were romantic relationships that American society frowned upon, and the government, and religion, were both used as a vehicle to advance that viewpoint.
In hindsight, it sounds ridiculous to use government or religion to advance an agenda of opposition to interracial marriage… but it didn’t seem so ridiculous, throughout the 1900’s, when people were arguing and fighting about it.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
The result of this arbitrary line in the sand is further perpetuating this notion of a hierarchy of sin… i.e. some sins in the Bible are WAAAAY worse than others… and there isn’t really a strong Biblical basis for that, particularly with New Testament Christianity. If you believe the Bible is true (lots of people don’t but if you do), that means you believe being a liar will keep people out of heaven just like being a pedophile or sex trafficker. Sure, society would view those 2 people differently, but God would be displeased with both.
The reason why we have many of these laws isn’t because of religious views. We have these laws to protect the liberties of Americans and ensure their wellbeing. That’s why we have laws about pedophilia and sex trafficking but we don’t have many laws about lying (unless you’re lying in court, or on legal documents, or something of that type). Even if you dislike it or disagree with it, it’s difficult to make a case for 2 people getting married directly hurting you… so, unless you plan on policing all of America based on how they transgress against God, I’ll stand by Proposition 3: For Americans who identity as Christian, your opposition to LGBT rights is both arbitrary and unusually narrow… I don’t think this does what you think it does.
To bring it in for a landing, we’ve talked about a lot over this 3-part series. And honestly, a lot of the application of what we’ve discussed extends far beyond LGBT rights. I think a lot of this would apply, more broadly, to thinking about the intersection of faith and politics.
I think over the last 20 years or so, Christianity has become viewed more and more negatively in American society… and while part of that is unavoidable (Jesus was a perfect man, and many of his contemporaries hated him), I, personally, think a lot of that is OUR fault. Over the course of American history, Christians have taken on all these random political views, like religious observance in K-12 education, and the opposition of LGBT rights, and other random things that don’t have ANYTHING to do with living out the gospel. And now, so much of America dislikes us… and it isn’t because we’re religious, per se… it’s because we don’t know how to coexist peacefully with other Americans. It’s like living with someone who’s a really bad roommate… and they think you don’t like them because they’re perfect… when in actuality, you don’t like them because they’re not a very good person to share a home with.
If people dislike Christians because they’re actually like Jesus, that’s perfectly fine. In fact, that’s perfectly normal.
But people dislike us because we’re jerks. We’re judgmental. We’re inconsiderate. We’re entitled. We do not excel at perspective taking. While these are sweeping generalizations, my hope would be that in this series I’ve made a modest case for those points. A lot of us can’t even see some of the [Christian] privilege that we have. We’re actually making this way more difficult on ourselves than it needs to be or it’s supposed to be. I’m hoping we can be more openminded in how we approach these things moving forward.
Politics usually isn’t a Zero-Sum game. Just because someone has a different religious or political view point doesn’t necessarily mean they’re trying to TAKE something away from Christians or ATTACK Christian liberties.
This country belongs to all of us. And it doesn’t belong more to me because I’m a Christian or less to someone else, because they’re gay. Irrespective of whatever faith traditions we’ve subscribed to, we all have to coexist.
We out,
Nnam’