September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Withholding Conclusions | Main | The Tolerance Bargain »

January 29, 2009

Comments

I wonder, what are we 'tolerating'? I can only assume by tolerance they mean tolerance towards a same-sex couples desire to be wed. But if they're tossing in the amplifier, "True Expression of", well then I dont know what to make of that declaration, may I even go as far as to say its false.

How is this different from "government intrusion" in the anti-abortion position you support ?

How do you expect "non-believers" to discern a difference in your position in support of government intrusion against abortion, and the positions you protest above ?

If the people in a democracy place a government in office that changes laws against your opinions, why do you object ? Are you against democracy ?

B. Stewart: re your first question, I think that's the point... to quote the article, "When laws are put in place, government isn't neutral anymore."

Because laws are not neutral, we must recognize that the pro-choice position is not pro-"choice", it's pro-abortion. You have governmental "intrusion" (whether by directly interfering or by directly preventing others from interfering) either way.

It's not that the author opposes democracy (as opposed to the people fighting against Prop 8, a democratically-passed measure); he is arguing what the people should do in their democracy. To use an extreme example, if everyone votes Hitler into office, it's not anti-democracy to oppose the actions of Hitler.

B., it's the government's job to protect human life. It's not the government's job to decide whether or not parents are too old and then take away their children accordingly.

I disagree. It isn't the government's job to "protect life". In a "democracy" the government's job is to do the will of the majority, even if that will is self-destructive.

People will debate ad nauseum about what constitutes government intrusion.

Such debates - from either side - do nothing to further the Kingdom of God.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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...."

The government gets it's power from the people, from their consent. However, there are certain rights (given by an authority greater than the people or the government) that are "self-evident" that the government exists to protect. Life is one of the biggest. Historically, in our democracy, there is a law above the government, above the masses, that we're to submit to in order to be just.

Secondly, it's a biblical idea to seek the good of the nation in which we're living. For example, Jeremiah 29:7 says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." In the welfare of our country, we will have welfare. We're also to do justice and love mercy (see Micah 6:8). Therefore, looking out for the good of the weakest is most definitely one thing Christians should be doing in the course of their lives.

B. Stewart,
If by the first sentence alone, we can observe that such an institution is not the tolerance they may lead it on to be. But in saying that, isint any official ruling intolerant of something? Its just a matter of what that something is. Poorly worded at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.

Well said Amy.

B. Stewart said: "In a 'democracy' the government's job is to do the will of the majority, even if that will is self-destructive."

Not necessarily so in a representative democracy, or in a republic. While the story above is from the UK, note that America threw out democracy a long time ago. We are ultimately ruled by nine unelected officials who pretty much rule by fiat, and who certainly can't be said to be exercising the will of the people.

> We are ultimately ruled by nine
> unelected officials ...

We are ultimately ruled by our own collective idolatry of the pronouncements of those nine judges. The fact is, the majority of us regard those pronouncements as Supreme above all else.

We let them rule us thus, even when it's "against our will."

Romans 13:1-7

It has the answers.

"...note that America threw out democracy a long time ago. We are ultimately ruled by nine unelected officials who pretty much rule by fiat, and who certainly can't be said to be exercising the will of the people."

We've never been a pure democracy unless you include local decisions made at New England town hall meetings.

We have the privilege to live in a cleverly crafted democratic republic with three branches of government each carefully balanced against the machinations of the others.

I daresay if we lived in a pure democracy there would be no legal rights for women, minorities, and non-Protestants.

The comments to this entry are closed.