Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists. The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless. This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)