Happy 11:11 11/11/11!

Sadly, yes. If it makes you feel any better, I would have posted the same post even if the blog was still on fire.

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights

You’re still equivocating, but you don’t see how.

Look, I think I see where you’re missing my point. (And I’m going to leave aside the question of race because I’ve already responded to that.) First a point about our current rights, and then I’ll give the clarification that I think will at least bring us to the same page of where the discussion needs to be.

First, individuals obviously marry another person, but the fact remains that no single individual is denied the chance to get married based on any of his characteristics. That is, every individual is treated equally under the law. That is where the concept of rights comes in. Can you agree that if I want to get married, leaving aside the question of who I want to marry for the moment, that if I want to get married, the government will not examine me and refuse to allow me to get married because I’m a woman, or because of my race, or because of my sexual orientation? That is, the government does not exclude me because of any of these characteristics? This is the area of rights I’m talking about.

But here’s the point I think will be most helpful to our conversation: Now let’s talk about couples. I’m sure you agree that there are certain combinations of people, even if they love each other, that are excluded from marriage. These include brothers and sisters, more than two people, underage people, people of the same sex, etc. Here’s my point: If equal rights demands that every group of people be included in marriage then all of these qualifications must be dropped in order to meet the standard of equal rights because it’s a fact that there are many groups of people that currently can’t get married. The only question I’m trying to determine is, does the concept of equal rights, does the concept of individuals being treated equally under the law demand that all these qualifications be dropped?

I think (maybe I’m wrong), you would recognize that some qualifications are valid, correct? If so, then here is where we would agree. If you agree that there are valid qualifications, then you also agree that this is really a discussion about which qualifications are valid. That is, equal protection under the law does not demand that all qualifications be dropped because valid qualifications are okay. Are you with me so far?

So far, I think we’re in agreement. The starting place where we begin to disagree is the question, is the man/woman qualification valid? Is the sex of a couple relevant to the institution of marriage? Is it relevant enough to warrant the government having an interest in regulating that relationship and not others? My whole point is that this is where the conversation needs to happen.

To merely say that equal rights demands that the man/woman qualification be dropped is to ignore the fact that there are many different combinations of people who currently can’t marry each other. The only difference is that we both agree that those qualifications are valid, so they’re not part of the discussion. All I’m asking is that you recognize that qualifications are not a violation of equal rights in and of themselves. We should not have qualifications irrelevant to the institution of marriage of course, so we need to argue whether or not the qualifications are valid/relevant.

Are you in agreement?

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights

Benjamin, every person has a right to get married. No person has the right to marry whomever he or she wants.

No single adult person is denied the right to marry because of race, or sexual orientation, or anything else.

Every single person may enter marriage as it’s defined.

No single person is allowed to marry whomever he or she wants.

Every single person must marry within the boundaries of marriage.

No single person is treated differently under the law. There is no “right to marry whomever you want” for anyone. I don’t understand why you can’t see this.

In the case of women’s suffrage, women weren’t allowed to vote because of their sex. Therefore, they were treated differently under the law from men. They were not allowed to vote because of their sex. When it comes to marriage, no person is prevented from marrying because of his or her sex, nor is he asked to prove his sexual orientation, nor is there any other qualification he must meet. Each person is treated the same under the law. Each person can marry, regardless of his or her sex.

Once again, there is no “right to marry whomever you want” for anyone.

I’m sorry to say this over and over again, but you still don’t understand the argument. You’re equivocating between the right to marry and the right to marry whomever you want (which could also be stated as the right for a couple to get married). The first exists for everyone equally, the second exists for no one.

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights

If I want to marry a man, I do NOT have the right to get married, which you ignorantly (or possibly just defiantly in the face of reality) insist that I do.

No, you do have the right to get married, you just can’t marry a man. As I’ve said more than once, no two people, no couples have a right to get married. The right is for each individual to get married. The right for you to get married still exists, even if you don’t choose to exercise that right because you want to do something outside the boundaries of marriage (e.g., marry a man). Again, there is no right to “do whatever you want,” nor is there a right to marry whomever you want. That’s not a right for anyone.

Anyone can get married and receive the same benefits. Anyone. If they don’t want to enter marriage under the terms of the boundaries placed on it by the state (like me, so far), then they won’t, and they won’t get the benefits. But I have no right to demand that I get the benefits just because I don’t want to enter into marriage as it’s defined for everyone.

If the privileges given to married people were rights, then I would also be able to demand them. But I can’t demand them, because I haven’t chosen to enter into marriage as defined by the state. If they’re rights, then I’m currently not receiving equal protection of the law, because I’m not receiving those privileges. But they’re not rights, they’re privileges granted to people who are married, and no individual is denied the right to get married. Not me, not anybody else. The fact that people don’t want to agree to the terms of marriage is up to them, but the government isn’t denying me my rights just because I don’t want to agree to the terms of marriage. It would only be denying me my rights if it told me that I, as an individual, would not be allowed to marry under the same boundaries everyone else marries. If it added an extra qualification to exclude me as an individual, then my rights would be being denied.

I don’t at all deny that this impacts people, but I can’t deny that marriage is a particular thing and not just whatever we want it to be. What’s true about our current rights doesn’t change just because it’s an emotional situation. And I’m certainly not for preventing homosexuals from being together or pledging themselves to each other.

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights

Are you saying that, currently, a gay man doesn’t have a right to enter a marriage? The fact is, every adult has the right to enter into marriage, and no individual adult is excluded on the basis of sexual orientation or anything else.

However, there is no such right as the ability to marry whomever you want, nor is there such a thing as a right for a couple to get married (rights are only for individuals)–there’s no rights like these for you, for me, or for a homosexual man or woman. This isn’t about having a right to marry a specific person, it’s about a right to enter into marriage. This right to enter marriage is not denied to anyone.

This isn’t semantics. The government has a right to define and place boundaries on marriage. Every individual has a right to enter into marriage, according to that definition. The only question is, what are the appropriate boundaries the government ought to have in place?

Christianity Is Vile to Atheists

“yeah, that was all pretty good, but your parents had sex to make you and you didn’t choose the right guess about the afterlife, you’re condemned”

You think Christians think that the fact that your parents had sex in order to conceive you makes you guilty? No.

I don’t understand why you think he’s entitled to enslave us.

You keep using that word, but I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you explain what you mean? You think that my following God means I’m in slavery?

if I’m to accept the premise that God exists, then I also have to accept the premise that everything he does is good because the bible says that too.

No, I’m just saying that if I’m to explain the coherence of Christianity, I need to be able to include all of Christianity in my answer in order to do so.

just as it would strike me as unjust to do harm to the whole of creation just because it is dissimilar from myself.

This is such an odd way to put it–that God punishes people because they’re “dissimilar from Himself.” Though technically correct that we are dissimilar, this doesn’t at all capture the situation. Here’s what I mean: If God’s character is perfectly good and therefore the standard of all goodness, then of course dissimilarity will be punished because where people deviate from the standard of goodness, there they are doing something wrong. It’s not wrong because it’s dissimilar, it’s dissimilar because it’s wrong and God’s character is only good.

You might as well say that a judge punishes a bank robber because the bank robber is dissimilar from himself and the law. Technically, they are dissimilar, but the bank robber is punished because what he did was wrong, opposed to the standard, not because he was different. Using the word “different” or “dissimilar” is just an unfair way to put an emotional spin on the word, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the situation.

The Miracle of Regeneration

Exactly! Like I said, whether or not we ought to rebel all depends on who the king is. You’re exactly right about the culture training us to be rebels. The problem is, somewhere along the way, we forgot that rebellion isn’t good in and of itself, and submission to good and proper authority is a beautiful thing!

Christianity Is Vile to Atheists

>>there’s no reason to punish people for their rebellion except as a deterrent to bring those unwilling to be martyred under his thumb.

On the contrary, there’s a huge reason–justice. Justice demands that wrong things be paid for, and justice is a good thing.

>>Furthermore, if he demands payment for sin, and humans are by their nature sinful, he’s pretty much just punishing people for the sheer hell of it

Not at all. He’s punishing them for the sake of justice, and by punishing them He shows that He values goodness. Those who value goodness and hate when people hurt others care about seeking justice against those who have wronged others. A good judge sentences criminals to jail. If a man commits a crime, nobody cares that he did it because he’s prone to do it because he happens to like to do such things. The fact is, he did it, and he receives punishment for it. That’s justice.

>>and then offering them this one special loophole to avoid it if they just worship him

This isn’t actually a loophole. That is, God isn’t just going to say, “Oh well, I’ll let you off the hook and forget about justice in your case.” This is the whole point of the cross. God wanted to show mercy that nobody deserved, but He had to do it in a way that upheld the perfection of justice–that is, He couldn’t just sweep crimes under the rug and pretend like they didn’t happen and they weren’t horrible. The cross allowed God to be both “just and the justifier,” as Romans 3 puts it. That is, by placing our punishment on Jesus, He was able to demonstrate His justice and hatred for all things evil, while at the same time justifying us and showing us mercy. Justice is still served, however.

>>it’s like mobsters charging for their “protection”. Sure, you have the “choice” of declining and being harmed by them, but nobody in their right mind would say that means they’re not being forced.

The police tell you that if you commit a crime you’re going to jail, but there’s a loophole: If you do what is good, you can avoid jail. Are they forcing you? Is this even a bit like mobsters? Or are they simply stating a reality about justice and goodness? Hell is similar. Hating God is a great evil, and if you hate Him, you go to jail. Loving Him is not “a loophole,” it’s simply the right and proper thing to do.

If you commit a crime, you’re going to jail. If you don’t commit a crime, you won’t go to jail. Since we’ve all committed moral crimes, we’re all in pretty big trouble with God. The cross isn’t a loophole, but a way for God to show His completely underserved mercy on us while still being just.

Christianity Is Vile to Atheists

Thanks Gabriel and Aaron! And Aaron, somebody brought up the evolution/theology thing at the STR blog. I thought, either this guy is really bright, or he was one of your classmates.

Benjamin,

>>My theory, though you’ll probably find it insulting, is that you subconsciously do so out of fear.

Excellent! That’s what I was hoping you’d say. I was planning for my next post to be about atheists thinking we’re in fear, so it’s good to know I’m on the right track.

>>At any rate, if somebody actually did believe that to be the case, I think that a vast majority of people would throw in their lot with the supreme being.

I actually think that’s why God doesn’t personally and miraculously announce His existence to everybody. I explain why here, and I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. It’s along similar lines to this post.

Christianity Is Vile to Atheists

David — Have you ever asked them, just to keep them on track, how they know this means Christianity is false? That maybe God did all these things and He’s true? And then find out what kind of god they’re expecting to find and why? That’s one way forward. But as you know, there’s just no quick way through this–there are too many aspects of the answer that have to addressed and brought together. Probably the only way forward is to draw them out. But what makes this even harder is that it’s really difficult to get people to put the time and effort into hearing the explanations, particularly since many of the more outspoken atheists have an intense emotional reaction.

Benjamin — how curious are you? Curious enough to look into it? Or just wondering about it? I think the mistake some of the atheists I talk to often make is that they’re not willing to consider the Bible as a whole, taking all the parts at face value, when they’re evaluating whether or not what they find there is moral (leaving aside whether it’s true at the moment). Kind of like the way you would enter the world of a novel and look at the story from within the worldview of that story. I’m confident that if everything in the Bible is true–the attributes of God, the motives He gives for His actions, and the actions He takes–it all makes sense and is moral (again, leaving aside for a moment whether or not it’s true).

The mistake I see atheists making is that I’ll start to explain why God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites, and then they’ll suddenly burst out, “But God doesn’t exist, so the Israelites did it out of racism! See? The Bible is immoral!” You see the problem? Of course if God doesn’t exist, that presents all sorts problems, but the story of the Bible isn’t about a group of people using the concept of a God to control and destroy people. That’s a story the atheist is making up by bringing his own ideas into it. The Bible is a different story altogether, and that’s what should be evaluated such that one can determine if the story itself is moral or immoral if considered on its own.

I have yet to meet an atheist who is willing to do this, and I find this very strange since we read novels all the time that are for sure not true, and yet we’re able to read and evaluate them as a whole, on their own terms. But imagine if I were watching The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and I said, “It’s immoral that they’re fighting the White Witch! Aslan wasn’t really there. The centaurs just drummed up support for their witch hating by inventing him and demonizing the White Witch. I can’t believe how immoral this is!” That sounds crazy, and yet that’s what atheists do to me all the time when we’re talking about the Bible.

Atheism Is Ugly

I’m saying that there is objective beauty, regardless of what we think about any particular thing. Dvorak’s New World Symphony is objectively more beautiful than “Welcome to the Jungle,” regardless of how many people prefer to listen to the second rather than the first. (Roger posted on this very thing here a few weeks ago.)

Why It's Wrong to Kill an Abortion Doctor

The same two points above apply.

Envy, Equality, and Economic Destruction

EE, you misunderstand. I didn’t at all say that Democrats will create a Soviet America. My point was only to show that leftist ideology is immoral and damaging to the economy, and it’s damaging to the extent that it will be enforced. I don’t expect the Democrats to start rounding people up. However, as I showed in my specific examples, the same ideology is there (a desire to enforce equality), though they will not be so extreme in enforcing it (as I said). Since the root of the ideology is the same, an extreme example more clearly illustrates the harm that results. The harm I was illustrating was not so much that people were put into camps as the idea that those who work hard and create wealth for everyone will be driven away and/or their industrious spirits repressed, thus harming the poor and making their plight worse.

California is another great example of this. I hear people in the film industry make statements all the time about how the industry is dying in this state because of taxes–people are losing their jobs, and this is very bad for California. They then beg for tax breaks. It never occurs to them to realize that this doesn’t just happen in the film industry but applies to every industry. Instead, they continue to want to take money away from everyone else except themselves, because they actually see the harm it does when it relates to them, but only when it relates to them.

It is not the government’s job to regulate a person’s greed. It’s the government’s job to create a just, stable society where people can work as hard as they like and do what they want with what they have, where contracts are honored, and where people aren’t cheated. It’s the church’s job (or any non-profit organization, religious or secular) to encourage charity and generosity. If the left spent 1/4 of the time they spend trying to get the government to take money from some to give to others and instead spent that time creating non-profits to help others in the way they want them to be helped, they would solve many more problems. Not only is this the moral option, it’s much more effective than government bureaucracy.