Runaway Planet

MORE ON ISLAMOPHOBIA, ETC.

Two good columns to check out today: Dennis Prager on the term "Islamophobia" and Mark Early on choosing a surgeon general.

MORE ON HITCHENS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

In the previous post, I pointed out a few flaws with Christopher Hitchens' argument against religion. Now I would like to mention a flaw in his Christian theology. He made the claim that the Bible encourages people to hate homosexuals. It would be easy just to discount this as ignorance of the text, as it certainly says no such thing, but that would miss the potentially bigger and more subtle problem here. Rather than be ignorant of the text, Hitchens may be using a definition of hate that makes the text say what he claims. This seems to be what the authors of this this web page did. As evidence supporting their claim that the late Jerry Falwell hated homosexuals, they quote him as saying, "God hates homosexuality." Now, this statement can easily be defended using scripture and I believe paints an accurate picture of God's attitude towards homosexuality. Jerry Falwell was right. God does hate homosexuality. Of course, God also hates adultery and lying and gossiping. But He does not hate the individuals who practice these sins. Scripture is clear that God loves homosexuals and adulterers and liars and gossipers and wants the best for them.

Logically, it simply does not follow that because God does not approve of homosexuality that he hates those who practice it. However, that doesn't keep people from trying to make it follow. Those who equate hating homosexuality with hating homosexuals try to coherently support their position, but, as we will see, it simply does not work. Here is their argument in a syllogism.

Premise 1: Denigrating certain characteristics of a person - those that are unchosen and unchangeable like skin color - is hatred of that person. For example, to say "blackness is abominable" is bigotry because skin color is outside the realm of moral discourse and beyond value judgments. To devalue these type of characteristics is to unjustly devalue the person.

Premise 2: Homosexuality belongs in the same category of human characteristics as skin color.

Conclusion: Therefore, denigrating homosexuality is to unjustly devalue the whole person and should be labeled hateful bigotry.

The problem here is that premise 2 is completely false. Homosexuality does not belong in the same category as skin color. Here we could spend some time debating the psychological, biological and sociological arguments over whether homosexuality is unchosen and unchangeable. Perhaps another time. For now, let's stick with the philosophical.

Homosexuality is a desire. It is an aspect of human intellectual and emotional life. Desires, as with other thoughts and emotions, can be controlled and changed. Therefore, they fall within the realm of moral discourse. We all know this to be true in many areas of our life. We label desires good or bad and work on changing the bad ones. Desires for too much food, too much nicotine, too much alcohol, adulterous sex, and pornography are quite common and powerful, but they are also rightly thought of as wrong and controlled and changed.

The only other option is to say that desires are completely determined and uncontrollable and outside the realm of moral discourse. However, if this is the case, then on what basis would gay activists condemn the desires of those who think homosexuality is immoral? What about those who have a desire to pass anti-gay laws? Aren't those desires just part of who they are? Wouldn't the activists be just as guilty of bigotry and hate as their opponents? The fact is, if desires are predetermined and uncontrollable, then moral discussion of just about anything is impossible. Everyone would have to be left to follow the desires of their own heart without judgment, whether that meant being gay or beating gays up.

Thankfully, that is not the truth of reality. Desires can be judged morally, and the desire to beat up homosexuals is wrong and should be changed. So should the desire to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. So should the desire to have sex with someone of the same gender.

One's desires are not the sum of one's identity. Just because God doesn't approve of certain thoughts does not mean that he hates the people who think them. Desires can be changed and often should be. As such, it is easy to see how God can love the sin while hating the sinner. He loves who you are, but doesn't approve of all you do or think. Hitchens needs to brush up on his theology or philosophy or both.

THE FLAW IN CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS' ARGUMENT

Atheist Christopher Hitchens has been getting a lot of press lately, so I watched a couple of his appearances on YouTube. Amazingly, I actually found myself agreeing with some of his arguments! As I’ll explain below, I think he is right to oppose hate-speech laws, although his thinking is somewhat inconsistent on the subject. Before we get to that, I’ll comment on his main claim to fame: his opposition of religion. Here he gives a typical polemic in a talk with Lou Dobbs:

In this interview Hitchens makes his standard point: religion is bad because it causes hatred, violence and other immorality. As the sub-title of his book states, Hitchens believes that religion “poisons everything” and therefore should be abandoned. He defends his thesis by giving many examples of supposedly religious people who were and are thusly immoral: Haggard, Swaggart, Hitler, the Ayatollahs of Iran, the Spanish Inquisitors, the Muslims who erupted over a Danish cartoon, and some others.

The major problem with Hitchens’ argument is that denigrating religion by using moral terms is pointless because the terms are meaningless outside of an agreed upon objective standard for right and wrong. Hitchens might think blowing up infidels is wrong, but what standard is he using to make that judgment? Certainly not the same one the Muslims doing the killing are using. They don’t think that blowing up infidels is wrong. Indeed, they think it is righteous as it conforms to the will of Allah, which is the objective standard they use for making moral judgments. In the same way, Hitchens might call homosexuality righteous as it does not violate any standard of conduct that he believes exists, but many others say homosexuality is immoral because, of course, it violates a standard that does exist – the nature of God as revealed in His will.

So in discussing religion, the question should not be, “Is it good or evil” as everyone will answer according to whatever standard they believe to exist. The question should be, “Which standard or morality does exist? What is true?” All religions (including Hitchens’) believe certain things to be true about the universe. They offer propositional claims about the nature of reality. Morality is then judged according to this reality. The real dilemma in debating religion is not deciding which one is “bad” or “good” as that already assumes something about objective reality to be true. Rather, the dilemma is deciding what about objective reality is true. If there is a one true god of the universe who is the standard for morality, and that god thinks that infidels should be blown up, than that action, by definition, is good. If there is a god who thinks homosexuality is immoral, then it is. The question is, does a God exist? What is he like? What does he approve or disapprove of? This is the plane on which this debate must take place. Telling radical Muslims they are wrong is a waste of time if you don’t at the same time explain that they are wrong because the god they follow does not exist and the god who does exist does not approve of blowing up anyone.

Interestingly, even if Hitchens wanted to go this route, he could not. He could go as far as telling the Muslims or Christians that their god does not exist, but he cannot then say that what they are doing is wrong because he has no basis for saying so. If there is no god, as Hitchens attests, than there is no such thing as right and wrong and he should just learn to live with the meaningless, morality free, nihilistic universe that he has been randomly placed in and let the religious folks do the same. (Hitchens  seemed to have a hard time grasping this point in the debate he had with Douglas Wilson here.)

In the next video, Hitchens is discussing a Canadian push to establish hate-speech laws that would outlaw speaking against people based on their religion or sexual lifestyle. Hitchens is arguing against the law because, he says, we need to be able to bash religious people, especially Muslims and Christians.

Now, as a proponent of free speech, I happen to agree that we should not implement these laws. The potential for misuse is just too great, particularly because “hate” is a moral term that will be defined according to whatever worldview the power hungry politicians happen to hold (see discussion of moral terms above). The last thing we need is the thought police roving around trying to stamp out whatever they personally believe to be “hate.” Indeed, Hitchens opposes the law because he says that he considers some of the people seeking protection from it to be the biggest haters. He defines what the Muslims say as “hate” and the Muslims define what Hitchens says as “hate.” Who is right? Do we really want lawmakers to weigh in on it? Hitchens doesn’t think so and neither do I. We should simply be able to have it out in an open conversation about whether or not the Muslims (or Christians or Jews, etc.) are right about objective reality or Hitchens is.

Hitchens made another interesting point that I thought worthy of comment. He said that it was terrible that religion was now starting to be considered something akin to skin color as far as civil rights are concerned. For instance, he pointed out that “Islamophobia” is becoming an accepted term within the legal system, on par with “racism.” Religious belief is not the same as race, he argued, and we should not offer the same civil protections to thoughts as we do to skin color. Malleable characteristics like intellectual beliefs and emotional desires should not be on par, legally, with genetically determined and unchangeable traits like the shade of our epidermis. I absolutely agree. In fact, the only problem with Hitchens argument is that he didn’t go far enough. He should have pointed out that “homophobia” falls into that category as well. Being gay is not the same as being black, and it should not be treated as such. Homesexuality is a desire; it is a thought. Sometimes it results in action, but the bottom line is that homosexuality is defined by a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender. As such, it is not a genetic trait on par with skin color.

I’m not saying we should bash gays any more than I am saying we should bash Muslims, but we need to start thinking about these hot-button issues within their proper categories and be able to talk about them openly.

"YOU MUST HAVE SEX"

As Chuck Colson writes at the bottom of this column about bedroom police in Florida, "Reality has a way of reinforcing the Christian worldview, whether we like it or not. And it makes all our wonderful utopian schemes look really silly." Exactly.

NARCISSISM AND CHILD "THINGIFICATION"

In the context of a very good article discussing homosexuality and parenthood, Kathleen Parker has some astute observations about  how our culture views children:

Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves - decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement.

Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification."

As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs.

THE WORLD HAS GONE INSANE

I'm not sure whether to laugh, scream, cry or rejoice over this story about banning abortions of gay unborn babies.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ICE-CREAM LOVERS NEXT?

I said it on yesterday's radio show and I've written about it often in this space, but it bears repeating because the drumbeat continues (see yesterday's Washington Post, for example): homosexuality is not a civil rights issue. Being gay is not the same as being black or having blue eyes. Homosexuality is a desire, not a physical characteristic and as such, must be treated as a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. This is not a "religious" assertion and you don't have to believe in the Bible to accept it. It is just simple logic and good science, as this interview with Jeffery Santinover attests.

What if we were to start treating all desires as identity-defining characteristics? Wouldn't we have to recognize adulterers as a distinct, protected group within society. And pedophiles?  Or ice cream lovers?

TAILS I WIN, HEADS YOU LOSE

Here is an interesting way to win a bet: make up the rules as you go.

When state Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, declared on the House floor earlier this week that he would give $700 to anyone who could show him a biblical passage stipulating marriage as being between a man and a woman, at least one unidentified person took him up on that dare.

When Holmes arrived for legislative work Thursday, someone had left a Bible for the legislator and had marked some biblical passages regarding the bonds of matrimony.

One of the passages marked is found in the book of Corinthians and speaks of a man and his wife and a woman and her husband. Holmes said the passage still did not prove anything to him.

"Anybody could have any interpretation they want of the Bible," he said Thursday, "but that's not my interpretation."

That is obviously a ridiculous and unsavory way to handle the wager, but let's clarify just why. Holmes initial claim was that the Bible didn't dictate that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. He was so sure of this supposed fact that he wagered $700.00 just to make the point. Now in order to make this claim, and in order for the wager to work, he had to be appealing to some common, objective standard of literary interpretation. After all, he was appealing to scripture for vindication of his position and putting money on the fact that his position was correct.

If you are going to appeal to a book for proof of your position or challenge people with monetary rewards to prove you wrong, you have to expect people to be able to interpret that book the same way you do. I assume that would mean some sort of "plain sense" reading of the text - taking the words at face value. You can't make a wager or support your position based on a floating, subjective standard of interpretation such as the one Mr. Holmes appealed to when confronted with the texts. It destroys the support for your initial proposition and makes the bet ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the gay lobby falls back on this kind of foolishness often. They shouldn't be able to get away with it. Read this list of texts from David Limbaugh at face value and see if Mr. Holmes shouldn't be out $700.00.

THE NON-CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE

I was reminded this Martin Luther King Day of a post I wrote last March about what that great man would think of the "Gay Rights" movement. As reported in typical fashion by today's Washington Post, the homosexual lobby has co-opted Kings terminology and tried to make his battle for racial equality equivalent to their struggle for social approval.

The November elections seemed to spell trouble for the gay equal rights movement, what with 11 new state laws banning same-sex marriages and wins for social conservatives in Congress.    

Now, after weeks of soul-searching and much internal, and even public, debate over how to navigate the current political waters, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations, known as LGBT rights groups, have a plan: to advance an ambitious agenda, including marriage rights.

..."We plan on working in a coordinated fashion," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay advocacy organization. "The moment that we're in now in our civil rights movement is acknowledging that we play different instruments and have different strengths, but we want to hear from that orchestra together."

However, the gay agenda is clearly not the same as King's civil rights fight. It is different on at least two levels.

First, skin color is a physical characteristic, homosexuality is a sexual desire, most often accompanied by sexual behavior. Fighting for the equal opportunity of people based on things like skin, eye and hair color if far different than fighting for social acceptance of people based on their thoughts and behavior. Thoughts and behavior are moral categories, skin color isn't. Thoughts and behaviors can be right or wrong, skin color can't. And it does not matter if you are born with a  natural tendency toward certain desires or behavior - they still can be judged right or wrong. For instance, most people are born with a natural tendency toward desiring after someone other than their spouse and many act on those impulses. That doesn't make lust and adultery right. In the same way, even if some people are born with homosexual tendencies, that does not exempt them from moral judgment.

This leads to the second big difference between Dr. Kings struggle and the current gay agenda. His civil rights movement, as many before it, was based on the fact that the God of the Bible had made everyone equal and did not like his people mistreated. The base argument against racial prejudice is that it is a sin. There is no deeper reason to fight against it. The gay movement has no such grounding. Not only do they not have theological support for their position, sound theology is loudly against their position. The same God that drove Martin Luther King to act against the sin of prejudice and oppression clearly thinks that homosexuality is a sin as well.

If only Dr. King could take the pulpit today.

THOSE EVIL FUNDAMENTALISTS

Does simply believing a certain action is a sin constitute advocating violence against people who practice that sin? Hardly. If it did we would have a lot less gossips and busybodies in the world. However, that didn't stop the LA Times today from blaming violence against gays in Jamaica on those crazy fundamentalist Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

The stigma attached to homosexuality and those living with HIV/AIDS prevails across much of the Caribbean, where Victorian-era anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in at least 11 countries, and politicians courting fundamentalist Christian constituencies are loath to contest them. But gay activists and human rights groups point to Jamaica as the most intolerant of the lot.

Some analysts, including Richard Stern, director of the Costa Rica-based Agua Buena Human Rights Assn., see the hostility as stemming from a religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin.

Give me a break. Not only is holding to this conviction no an encouragement to violence, Christianity clearly views this type of violence as a great sin in and of itself. This type of reason-free, evidence-free "reporting" is just propaganda intended to emotionally undermine a orthodox Christian worldview and sound Christian theology. If the LA Times wants us to believe these things are false, let them take them on head on with some sound reason and good evidence, not with this junk.