Why a classic liberal wants to help gays remove the state from marriage, BTW I am one.

Dear reader,

To those of you who have taken the time to visit my blog and read regularly the words that I type, I would like to extend my deepest appreciations. It is with this sentiment that I wish to articulate my opinions on how followers of Christ should approach this opportunistic time to cooperate with the gay marriage movement, at a time when they and the religious right are so irreconcilably opposed. If you are not a christian, you are welcome to engage on this debate and I appreciate your input, but expect this is written by a christian to christians. By the end of this discussion we all may find ourselves in a place of congeniality, as long we think critically with gentleness and respect.

Let us begin…

I am a Classical Liberal. I am not a Conservative, nor a Republican. This is a term I now use to define my political positions on social laws, economics, and roles of government. I cannot be a conservative, because I am not conservative in nature. I am progressive, one who likes to move forward and challenge the current modus operandi of our culture. I am not willing to be satisfied with the status quo. A classical liberal is capable of this without abandoning his biblical world view. Therefore, convinced of these fundamental truths, I am now principled and unwilling to capitulate to the lesser ideas formed out of hollow philosophies founded, not on the indispensable, immutable God, but on an imperfect and deeply flawed humanity. It is this belief that allows me to hope that you can walk with me as I discuss the need to support LGBTs (Lesbian Gays Bisexual Transgenders), as we work to remove the state from sanctioned marriage.

I’m sure your first response to my suggestion to cooperate with gays was one of shock and appall. I ask you to bear with me a little longer and ponder this question: Do you realize that the concept of licensing also carries with it the right to prohibit? In other words, when the state deems it appropriate, they can prohibit your God-instituted, covenantal relationship. By filing a marriage license, California courts are now allowed to meddle in your marriage bed. This is a very uncomfortable risk to Christians when we allow the long arm of government to decide what is right in our families. It may become expedient one day for the state to decide that your marriage is now obsolete, or the religious beliefs which define it to be intolerant, and therefore, illegal.

If I didn’t care about people, I would have been libertarian, for my views about government are not very hopeful. It is an untrustworthy monster and operates far too many times contrary to my biblical convictions. I would gladly take any opportunity to increase personal freedoms and liberties. Marriage, of course, is no exception.

This brings me to the opportunity the “religious right” have before them. We are labeled as the intolerant, mean spirited, homophobic, gay haters of America. I think it is time to communicate a message to those unbelievers that we do not hate them. We do not fear them, although we may forget sometimes that they are made in God’s image (imago deo). We would be a better people if we remember that our God loves them more than we ever could. So, I ask why not work in concert, not against, the LGBTs and kick the state out of our marriages? And in the process, reach out to a people group who misunderstand the message of the gospel.

My fear is that the religious leaders of our day will not recognize the greater threat and continue the passionate battle of world views. They may print informative pamphlets, effective email campaigns, well produced commercials and stop the gay agenda. And although successful, in pursuing this path we reinforce the gay hater, intolerant, uncaring Christian stereotype. There is a better way in which the Christian may stand for righteous living, but still love the unrighteous. Here is how we should do it.

There should be a practical course of communication to the leaders of the LGBT movement. First, a white flag should be raised by prominent Christian leaders to open the doors of communication. Second, we must state that we still believe marriage is not a right but a gift granted by God alone. We are not willing to compromise on this. However, since they wish to remain secular, we also recognize their right to call the commitment to their relationship whatever they wish, including a marriage. We can both retain our beliefs and accomplish what we want. Third, peace between activists on both sides needs to be agreed upon and that the new enemy is the state. Fourth, there must not be any expectation, once it is complete, that Christians must conform to the belief that marriage can be anything other than between one man and one woman. Just as they have the freedom to define it in their social circles, we are free to define it in ours. We must maintain the strictest of difference when contrasting Christian marriage and all other secular relationships. Fifth, we get the law added to the next election through petitions from both sides.

If we do this successfully, a new law must be drafted in which the state only recognizes civil contracts between two consenting adults, much like a business. The words marriage will no longer be defined by the state and doing this will limit state involvement in these contracts to medical and financial powers of attorney and probate. This will be regulated on the state level just as they are today. This new law, however, should be created before the civil activist machine is in full force because it will provide a purpose for Christians and LGBTs to remain unified until the task is complete.

What do we do then? Well, we go back into our churches and focus on our marriages. Take the institution back and redefine it in our culture. We become different again and show it. The society will shift back again to Godly principles once we love our spouses unconditionally and teach our children to do the same, just as God intended. In doing so we will have not only transformed our current generation, but benefited future generations through fundamentally Godly foundations.

Let us be proactive in our political pursuits. Let us spur one another to walk in faith and not fear of those who do not profess Christ. It is for the Lord to judge the outsider, not for us. It is only when they wish to join our churches or become Christians that the Bible teaches us that we can hold them to our standards. But ultimately, all of this needs to be done without attacking their humanity. Remember the heights from which you fell before you met Christ so that you reaffirm your humility. And with this renewed attitude, we may win more to the Lord than we have ever done before with our Christian tracks and our angry fists.

So, when you see the Christians circle their wagons against the LGBTs, it will do you good to remember your own depravity and these words by C.S. Lewis:

“The dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. It is with immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"

Were you aware of the Earth Hour movement? It started in Australia and is born out of the Global Warming hoax...ahem...excuse me, it's now referred as "climate change." Not to travel too far down this rabbit trail, but it begs the question: When isn't the climate changing? Funny, freaky fact: Obama has just banned the use of the words: "terror," "war on terror," and "terrorists" from terrorist acts. They are now renamed "Overseas Contingency Operations." If I can restate this in non-gov doublespeak. It means Obama wants to change Foreign Policy when we respond to terrorist activities (Contingency = in response to). For the layman, preventing terrorist activities is not an option because we only have operations that respond to terrorists. They kill people first, then we act. How is this good for us?

I digress to more humorous hypocrisy, back to Al. So, Mr. Global Warming himself didn't get the memo that he was supposed to shut off his electricity last Saturday night for an hour. Here's the article.

Let me leave you with these thoughts:
"Do you really believe that what you believe is really real." -Del Tackett

Does Al Gore really believe what he preaches? Or perhaps, maybe he holds to a different belief, one that allows him to be hypocritical. I shall call it liberalism.

Thanks to Jer for the keeping me up on Mr. Internet.

Nice vs. Nasty: The Movement that Is Destroying Critical Intelligent Thinking

This morning I was listening to Armstrong and Getty's Talk show and they read from an article in The Australian, an online newspaper in. And yep, you guessed it, published in online Australia. Everything is going online and pretty soon The Matrixwill become more than a movie. More on Adam's blog about this and the effect of social networking can be found here.

The article was entitled Discipline overthrown by the new-found tyranny of niceness. It focused mainly around the topic of failed schools and the possible causes. Kenneth Minogue states,

"My argument is, then, that the collapse of family and school discipline largely results from a dominant moral sentiment that we may call "the niceness movement". Niceness as a political sentiment has many departments -- political correctness is one, for example -- but I am concerned largely with its sentimental undermining of authority in family and classroom. The selling point of this niceness was, as it were, that pupils would become a nicer, gentler generation, but in fact the disorderly tendencies that teachers soon lost the power to check have spilled over into the playground, where bullying has long been increasing, and from the playground this disorder has spread into the streets. Thus can politicised compassion lead to misery.

Moral vices prosper by dressing themselves as virtues. Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require. And it has spread throughout our societies because it is often popular with voters. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions, and so is a good deal of democratic politics."

I couldn't have written this more eloquently, except the spelling error of "politicised." Then again, I can't spell or use a comma, correctly, anyways. Who am I to critize?

But this article did get me to think. It did get me to ponder. Armstrong and Getty's commentary concluded that it comes back to the same argument, a feel good view that the world can be always seen as "oppressor verses oppressed." The political tipping point for the average voter has boiled down to simply this, which party can best portray the other as the oppressor? And this, combined with our inability to critically think, has led to our current debacle in the economy and abandonment of decent morality. Let me explain.

Personal responsibility has been watered down, devalued and subsequently, diminished as a virtue in our culture. It has been replaced with entitlement and a host of "feel good" belief systems. Do not think me to be so naive that I see this as something new, nevertheless, there is continuous evidence leading us back from adulthood to adolescence.

Mr. Minogue puts it this way, "Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require." What does this mean? We have a jar of M&M shells filled with dung, not chocolate, and call it sweet. Sure it looks like candy. Tastes like candy...at first. BUT, don't dive in too far because you will uncover something unpleasant, therefore, just leave it in the jar and believe it to be candy. Don't throw it away and get something real, just leave crap on the table and call it candy. And in doing this, you miss the greatest opportunity for advancement, the opportunity of pain and difficulty.

This "evasion of hard decisions" has led us to not address problems today with critical thinking. We make decisions based upon how we feel and determine it's goodness from emotion, not sound reasoning. When did America regress? Children do what feels good, and adults do what's right. I believe that America has become like a child, being led by the hand and spoon fed politically correct ideas that in the end, hurt us as a people.

What kind of country allows a woman to sue McDonald's and win, because she didn't have the words "Caution: Hot Drink" on the cup? (Liebeck vs.McDonald's) Answer: An America that believes she is oppressed by the larger oppressor, McDonald's.

What kind of country allows us to murder unborn children upwards in the tens of millions, the equivalent of Canada's population (source), in the name of choice? Answer: An America that believes the adult is the victim, oppressed by the Religious Right.

What kind of country would sit by idly while some call for the execution of AIG executives and their families with piano wire when the very government who caused this problem owns 80% of AIG? Answer: An America that believes people who lied on their loan applications and couldn't afford the home were swindled (oppressed) by the larger (oppressor) lenders who should have known better.

Now, I realize that my sarcasm and pointed articulation is uncomfortable and unpalatable to most people. However, you who read my blogs regularly are not regular people. You are not normal. Dave Ramsey would say, "Normal is broke, so let's get weird." I'm gonna modify it for politics and state, "Normal is a lemming, so let's weird."

I call you to exercise your cranium, muster some courage, and stand for integrity and principle. We cannot sit by and do nothing while the fundamentally foundational freedoms are eroded daily by men and women, who claim falsely, they do this in our best interests. I refuse to believe that another being, other than Jesus Christ, can have something better in mind for me than myself.

So, if being "Nasty" means that I promote individual liberty, expect personal responsibility from all, and stand up to those who believe otherwise...well, I'm sorry Mr. Politically Correct, but you will just have to live with me calling you an ignoramus and a dunce. And I hope that works out for you.