Albert Mohler and the totally botched moral crusade
of the Evangelical Right
The other day the subject of the relationship of science and religion was
discussed
in this forum in passing. Here is where the use of science to reinforce
religion-derived
morality could be of crucial importance. But, needless to say, not once in
the article
presented below, by Albert Mohler, is any such idea even broached. For him
the only way to deal with the issue is in terms of a Biblical worldview.
This is not to deride such an outlook. But it is to say that modern men and
women
want support for their traditional moral views from the court of science.
This is
how people ( usually ) simply are. If there isn't scientific support then
credibility
suffers. Indeed, it may suffer sufficiently that people abandon moral
particulars
because of the perception that the weight of science is on the other side
--
which is clearly the case, the perception, not the science-- when the
issue
is homosexuality. That is, the Left has pulled off a fast one and has
convinced
multitudes that it favors a "scientific" outlook, verified by all necessary
methods,
to the effect that homosexuality is psychologically normal and, therefore,
that
homosexuals deserve full legal rights as if they were simply different,
not morally inferior or even morally criminal.
But there is no valid science to any such effect. None.
However, by conceding the field to the Left, that is, refusing to become
informed
and learning the actual science, the Right has set itself up to lose. And
it continues
to lose , again and again, to the extent that even some of its
lime-lighters, like
Ann Coulter, are now partly in the enemy camp.
This is pathetic.
Perhaps worse than the defection of Coulter, since this isn't really much
of a loss,
is the obvious and growing problem of erosion of support from the
conservative
intelligentsia. The first "big name" to become pro-homosexual was William F
Buckley,
but along the way it came to include a non-intellectual of stature who had
a lot of
influence among Right-intellectuals, namely, Ronald Reagan.
Nowadays it is common enough for "brains" in the conservative cause to take
a position on the issue of homosexuality that is virtually
indistinguishable from
that of the Left. Why ? Because ( 1 ) they don't believe all that much in
the Bible
anyway, except maybe as a source for private devotions, and ( 2 ) they are
cowed into submission by the clamor of Left-wingers who use all sorts of
scientific sounding arguments. But there also is ( 3 ) the factor of
libertarian
influence on the Right, which, leaving aside other questions,
frames all issues of morality in terms of amorality.
That is, morals are not a factor of consequence for most libertarians
since libertarianism is ultimately a simplistic philosophy ( akin to
Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism ) which seeks to reduce all
questions to some single principle, and nothing else really matters , viz :
Self-interest is all you need to be concerned about.
Even if this view is absolutely necessary for any kind of realism, it also
is incredibly short-sighted, irreligious or even anti-religious, and fails
to take into account maybe 80% of every other consideration
which deserves at least some attention before making decisions
that must be lived with for may years afterward.
Libertarian philosophy denies the value of all other philosophies,
moreover.
Not much of a problem since few Americans actually know any other
philosophies,
but it can be pointed out that it is a strange world where Hayek, for all
the good that
may be said of him, still does not elevate his ideas into the philosophical
stratosphere.
Does Hayek really trump Kant, Plato, Aquinas, and you name it, a pantheon
of
the greatest minds in history, each of whom had powerful reasons to regard
homosexuality as defective or wildly dysfunctional or otherwise
completely unacceptable. ? I don't think Hayek does any such thing.
Not even close.
Hayek, on this issue, was flat out wrong. His argument was that simply
because a majority favors something does not make it right. Therefore, it
must
be the case that homosexuals are bring discriminated against unjustly.
Furthermore,
homosexuals should have full rights the same as heterosexuals.
This kind of reasoning is a joke. The majority also disdains pedophilia.
Therefore legalize child molesting and give pedophiles full legal rights ?
This is absurd, yet it is also the argument that has won the day, when the
issue
is homosexuality --since there was such a thing as libertarianism-- among
libertarians
and, in due course, among most conservatives who are influenced by Hayek.
It is important to challenge Hayek head-on about such matters. And the
simplest
way to do so is to cut him down to size, as far less profound and far less
meaningful
and far less intelligent than Plato or Kant or Aquinas, to name a few.
For that matter, far less intelligent than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote
Virginia law
which classified sodomy as a capital crime.
Hayek as a politico-philosophical "god," is a pipsqueak god , and too often
a false god.
In other words, it is high time to pull the rug out from under Hayek.
--------------------------
Then there is the "slight detail" that to side with homosexuals is no
different than
declaring war on the religions of the world. Not all religions, but most of
them,
including all forms of traditional Christianity for which the Bible is
authoritative,
on all forms of Orthodox Judaism, on normative Buddhism, normative
Hinduism,
Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, the Baha'i Faith, etc,
including Islam
Yes, on various issues we can take exception to any of these faiths, and
about
Islam in particular I , for one, take many exceptions. But here is an
issue in
which nearly all religions agree : Homosexuality is morally sick,
repulsive, stupid,
and damaging to society and ruinous to individual lives.
Alas, "fundamentalists" in many religions are loathe to even see
commonalities
between themselves and people of other faiths and, therefore, make no
attempts
at all to forge alliances between themselves and others. Instead, the
entire
area of interfaith relations, if not 100 % surely in excess of 90 %, is
ceded to the religious Left.
This attitude is contemptible.
It is especially contemptible because alliances are also thinkable on other
issues
of importance, like opposition to abortion, about which pretty much the
exact
same list of religions also agree.
Instead we get, take your pick :
Christianity is always right and all other religions are
wrong
Orthodox Judaism " " " " " " "
" "
"Pure" Hinduism " " " " " " "
" "
and so forth for most ( even if not all ) of the others.
This is ridiculous and utterly dumb.
Well, now we are in a situation where much of the Right is in full retreat
on the issue of homosexuality precisely because of how ill-advised its
strategy has been , how wrong-minded and unself-critical.
I could not be more disgusted.
-------------------------
There is a need for me to get my house in order, literally, to complete
a massive reorganization of hard copy files and my library and other such
things.
And there is a pressing need to complete my book on Islam, currently
in limbo, maybe 3/4ths finished. Then several much shorter projects
that have also been in limbo far too long , also each well along
toward completion. All of which means several more months
to clear the decks.
After that ? Well, lets put it this way : I probably have sufficient
material
to write a 500 page book on the subject of all the empirically-based
reasons why it is inescapably true that homosexuality is a grievous
mental illness. Not my intention to write anything like 500 pages
on the subject, needless to say, but enough for a serious book
of respectable length. For me this is crucially important.
I intend, in so many words, to declare war on homosexuality
and to use each and every weapon at my disposal to utterly
destroy all arguments made on behalf of each and every
public position taken by homosexuals and their flunkies.
Yeah, I'm angry --really, really angry.
My thanks to Albert Mohler for reminding me of how angry I am.
Billy
============================================================
_The Christian Post_ (http://www.christianpost.com/) > _Opinion_
(http://www.christianpost.com/opinion/) |Wed, Aug. 10 2011 10:01 AM EDT
Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution
By _R. Albert Mohler, Jr._
(http://www.christianpost.com/author/r-albert-mohler-jr/)
The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year
history. But now it’s facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations:
_homosexuality_ (http://www.christianpost.com/topics/homosexuality/) .
To many onlookers, this seems strange or even tragic. Why can’t Christians
just join the revolution?
And make no mistake, it is a moral revolution. As philosopher Kwame Anthony
Appiah of Princeton University demonstrated in his recent book, “The Honor
Code,” moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But
this is hardly the case with the shift we’ve witnessed on the question of
homosexuality.
In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something
almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be
the moral equivalent of heterosexuality-and deserving of both legal
protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has
argued
that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral
inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing
less
than “moral deficiency.”
The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this
predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By
now
the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives
arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church
must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives
lose. Next, the _denomination_
(http://www.christianpost.com/topics/denomination/) ordains openly gay
candidates or decides to bless same-sex unions.
This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority
of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God’s
revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot
pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all
homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the
covenant of
_marriage_ (http://www.christianpost.com/topics/marriage/) . We believe that
God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the
way to holiness, but to true happiness.
Thus we cannot accept the seductive arguments that the liberal churches so
readily adopt. The fact that same-sex marriage is a now a legal reality in
several states means that we must further stipulate that we are bound by
scripture to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman-and
nothing else.
We do so knowing that most Americans once shared the same moral
assumptions, but that a new world is coming fast. We do not have to read the
polls and
surveys; all we need to do is to talk to our neighbors or listen to the
cultural chatter.
In this most awkward cultural predicament, _evangelicals_
(http://www.christianpost.com/topics/evangelicals/) must be excruciatingly
clear that we do
not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a
matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as
sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus
Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and
accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for
Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.
This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is
what we truly believe.
It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to
meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that
are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how
tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to
see the
challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all,
who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy
for sin, starting with our own.
We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia-not in the way that
activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to
face
this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.
My hope is that evangelicals are ready now to take on this challenge in a
new and more faithful way. We really have no choice, for we are talking
about our own brothers and sisters, our own friends and neighbors, or maybe
the
young person in the next pew.
There is no escaping the fact that we are living in the midst of a moral
revolution. And yet, it is not the world around us that is being tested, so
much as the believing church. We are about to find out just how much we
believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
