SHOULD THE LAW LET CHRISTIANS WITH DEEPLY HELD
BELIEFS AGAINST GAY SEXUAL ACTIVITY DISCRIMINATE ON THAT BASIS?
I believe Christians condemning gay and lesbian activities as a grave sin are
insulting the love exhibited by same sex couples living together. I don't know
why we are so tolerant of such condemnations. In some ways, condemning love is
worse than condemning skin colour. That is the reason after all racism is so bad
- it lacks love.
People say that beliefs should be respected when they held deeply. But who
decides how deeply they are held? Who decides what deeply held beliefs need to
be taken account of by the law and which ones are not to be? What about people
who pretend their beliefs are deeply held? What if the beliefs are obviously
wrong - such as that a gay person is bad enough to go to Hell forever? Is it not
wiser to call beliefs that are too silly to deserve refutation delusions? And
what happens when a person deeply believes the registrar should officiate at her
and her girlfriend's wedding and the registrar does not? Does the deepest belief
come first? It could be argued that as the lesbian's belief in her love is more
fundamental than the registrar's religious belief that same sex relationships
are wrong that her belief comes first. Belief in love has to come before belief
in religion which might be proven false or which the person might turn away
from. Love and life matter more than religion or religious faith. Faith matters
more than specifically religious faith. The law of the land must recognise that
religious belief alone is not a reason to let the holder of the belief
discriminate against others or get exemptions from obeying the law. If it is,
then only strong belief, should be a reason. But the state cannot be an arbiter
of how strong or believable a person's faith is. It would mean that the state
would have to examine the evidence for why a religious belief seems to be true
and be a complete violation of the secularism.
The law will be arbitrary in what "deep" beliefs it protects. To protect a
person's deep belief that homosexuality is wrong is homophobia because the
person's deep belief that atheist books should not be published without a
theological rebuttal will not be respected. And yet as Christ said God comes
first meaning that if there is a choice between protecting belief in God and
protecting belief that homosexuality is a sin then choose protecting belief in
God.
When a law comes in, it not only tells you what to do but it implies other
things as well. For example, if any deep beliefs are to be respected then all
are - period. A door is opened even if there are restrictions for the
restrictions are not logical.
Notice that to say that your deeply held beliefs must be heeded by the law is to
say that deeply held beliefs are sacred. But that makes no sense. Why stop with
deeply held beliefs? Why not just any belief? If it is about how deep a person
feels about belief then it is not about protecting belief but prejudice and
hysterical immaturity. Beliefs should only be sort of sacred if they are true or
if they are fact-based or in so far as they try to be fact-based. Some say that
facts should be sacred not beliefs. I would say facts should be more sacred than
beliefs. If you have to honour facts or belief and have to choose, then honour
facts instead of belief.
In reality, those who protect the deeply held beliefs of religious people who
want exemptions in the law so that they can discriminate against people are
enablers of bigotry. They have a bit of it in themselves which is why they want
to protect it. Also, "You can't give offence. You can only take it."
When people say that deeply held beliefs are to be protected by the law they are
talking about religious beliefs. You never hear of a historian saying he finds
those who deny the existence of Jesus to be offensive and that they must be
silenced by the law. To protect some beliefs is to give those who say they hold
them a privileged position in the law. Christians were able to suppress atheists
by making the law discriminate against and evil penalise those who espoused
atheism. If you are going to be offended then be offended by attempts to stifle
free speech. Those who want it stifled want us to be afraid to speak our minds.
We cannot trust anything we are told except in a society that encourages free
inquiry. And expressing opinions helps us work out the truth and sometimes when
an opinion is wrong there is still a little truth in it. The mathematical
calculation giving the wrong result it can still be half right with regard to
the equations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10914768/Christian-beliefs-need-balancing-with-equality.html
The main thing about conscience is that it should be about obeying the law of
the land for the common good. For example, if the law commands registrars to
perform same sex marriages - even if they think it is wrong - then the
registrars should obey. Conscience cannot be an excuse for disobedience. Obeying
the law takes precedence over any other moral difficulties the person may have
with obeying the law. We all have to compromise our consciences and the law. For
example, you pay your taxes though they might be used to wage an unfair war. We
all compromise so why can't registrars and doctors who are anti-abortion? The
law has the right to make registrars and doctors do things they claim are wrong
- period!