The Religious Freedom bill has
motivated many to write letters to this newspaper. Very few of the
published letters expressed any support of the bill (my letter was
one of those few). As I read the letters of those opposing the bill,
I wondered how many had actually read the bill or the amendment
(which basically neutered the bill). The original RFRA was given over
60 days of public testimony in our state legislature, but the
amendment was written in secret without any public testimony at all.
Yet I have not heard any of those who favor open government complain
about that process.
Many of those who opposed the bill used
such strong language that I thought we were talking about two
different laws. Words such as “fiasco, anti-gay image, humiliation,
buffoons, toxic legislation, embarrassed, laughingstock, bigotry,
obsessive hate” filled the letters page of this newspaper.
As I watched business “leaders” and
politicians panic, it occurred to me that the true “homophobes”
are not those who believe homosexual marriage is a moral perversion.
The true homophobes are people who are deathly afraid of upsetting
the various gay rights organizations. The true homophobes are those
people who are afraid to say publicly what they really believe
because they fear personal attacks and intimidation tactics.
Emotional demagoguery and fear replaced
rational discussion and debate about the merits of the bill. Many
people opposed to the bill do not want rational discussion because
rational thinking is dangerous to their position. Instead, feelings
and emotion rule the issue, not facts.
Many opposed to the bill say they
believe in free speech but then are surprised to find that people
exist who actually have opinions different from theirs. Since they
have little or no experience in actually discussing controversial
problems, they resort to intimidation and emotional labels to shut
down debate. Facts do not matter, only how the law made people
“feel”. And, of course, our feelings take priority over
inconvenient facts.
Some college students today are so
immature and insecure about inconvenient truths that college campuses
have established “safe zones” where students can go to deal with
the trauma of having to listen to viewpoints which contradict their
own beliefs.
One letter writer asked someone to show
him where the Bible teaches that homosexuality is more of a sin than
robbery or murder. As a pastor, I will be glad to educate him. The
Bible uses the word “abomination” for those sins which are
particularly detestable to God. Not all sins are labeled an
abomination. And not all sins are equal in their seriousness or their
effects. Just as our justice system does not punish every crime with
the same penalty, not all sins have the same moral seriousness or
consequences. The Bible refers to moral sins such as homosexuality,
idolatry, lying, pride, dishonesty in business, and murder as
abomination. One reason the Bible calls these acts “abomination”
is that all of them contradict truth, a fundamental characteristic of
God. This does not make other sins “less sinful”. It simply calls
attention to the more serious nature and consequences of some sins.
I wonder
where all of this rush to allow people to love who they wish and to
avoid any type of restrictions on moral behavior will end. Here are
some questions for those who are so fanatically opposed to RFRA and
so invested in homosexual marriage:
Should churches and religious colleges
lose their tax-exempt status because they oppose homosexual marriage
and have prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors?
Should college accrediting agencies
remove accreditation from those schools which teach that only
marriage between one man and one woman is acceptable and that any
other “marriage” is immoral?”
Should states refuse to recognize
marriages officiated by ministers who oppose homosexual marriage?
Should states allow polygamy between
consenting adults, where polygamy would include one man and multiple
wives, one woman and multiple husbands, three or more men married to
each other, or three or more women married to each other?
Why should any government prevent two
brothers or two sisters from marrying each other if they are
sincerely in love with each other? Incest is not the issue here since
children cannot be naturally produced between same-sex couples.
Once a society rejects any objective
basis for morality, then the only basis for any morality is what that
society chooses to accept. And, as we have seen recently, that basis
can change faster than a politician seeking votes or a business
seeking profits.
