LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Ken]

I think secular laws should be based on secular arguments or rationale. So taking the example of gay marriage, if there are legitimate secular arguments to restrict gay marriage (or LGBT rights in general) then people can make those arguments and the legislative process can consider them. But I would oppose secular laws based only on religious arguments. That is tantamount to a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

A related example is polygamy. There are very legitimate secular reasons to prohibit polygamy. You can get into a tremendous mess with things like inheritance, custody, and so forth when you have polygamist marriages and divorce. If you have a family with 3 wives and one husband, and one wife files for divorce and leaves, who owes child support and alimony? Who gets custody of children? Who's names are even on the birth certificates of any children from a polygamist marriage? Who is entitled to social security and other government benefits? What are the inheritance rules if one spouse dies? It becomes a whole horrid mess to sort out. It may well be that the secular arguments against polygamy are still insufficient to outweigh the infringement on freedom and religion that such laws entail. But that is a proper argument for the legislatures and courts.

If one wants to make similar secular arguments against gay marriage. And those arguments are compelling enough to outweigh the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law then fine. I just don't think secular law should be based entirely on religious arguments.

As for Christian persecution. I fail to see how anyone's private relationship, gay or straight, has any effect on other citizens, Christian or otherwise. You may find it distasteful, but it isn't persecution to have to live in a society in which gay marriage is legal. Any more than it is Christian persecution to live in a society in which divorce is legal.

[GaryK]

Here is what I was responding to:

Some people seem to believe that we need governments that persecute LGBT because that will make life safer for us as Christians. The Ukraine thread made me wonder - what are the LGBT policies of countries that persecute Christians the most?

I understood this thread to be in response to what Josh and Nett were saying about LGBT issues in the other thread. Maybe I assumed wrongly that you do not support these anti-Christian countries' policies on LGBT issues.

I don't support killing or torturing people because they are gay. I don't think Ukraine has anything to do with LGBT issues, I think that's a fig-leaf offered for the invasion. Even if it were the reason for the invasion, I do not support massive bloodshed out of fear that some day Ukraine might allow gay marriage.

And I suspect that supporting these things does not work out well for religious freedom for Christians in the long run.

I thought that was worth talking out.

I'm saying that it seems inconsistent not to support a political entity's pro-morality policies on LGBT issues while opposing a political entity's anti-morality policies on war.

Again, this feels like a fairly complicated approach to a simple moral question. Gay marriage is sinful. Massive bloodshed is horrible. Why is that hard?

I don't really understand the work the word "political" is doing in these sentences or how that works out in your moral theology or your understanding of two kingdom theology. That's precisely why I asked these questions:

Morality is god-centered. Is there an exception for things that are political? If a politician rapes a woman, is it morally exempt? If a politician sends an army to rape and kill large numbers of people, is it morally exempt? Are genocides morally neutral if conducted by governments, since they are therefore political? Is it wrong to correct a Christian who applauds such a "morally exempt genocide"?

How would you answer these questions? That will help me understand what "political" means in your framework.

I view what other kingdoms do as political and leave it at that. I don't try to insert moral arguments for why one side is good and the other side is bad. I think it's impossible to be consistent when trying to do so.

For example - some of the Muslim countries in your list seem to be more closely aligned with biblical moral values than many western countries. If one is going to use moral arguments as the basis to support or oppose political systems, then it would follow that the closer a system is to biblical moral values, the more support that system receives. I don't see that happening with pro-western supporters.

I really don't believe God has favorite political systems. If He did, I suppose He would choose ones that have the most overall morality.

[Ken]

Some people seem to believe that we need governments that persecute LGBT because that will make life safer for us as Christians. The Ukraine thread made me wonder - what are the LGBT policies of countries that persecute Christians the most?

Here's a list of the top 10 countries Where It’s Hardest to Follow Jesus:

1. Afghanistan
2. North Korea
3. Somalia
4. Libya
5. Yemen
6. Eritrea
7. Nigeria
8. Pakistan
9. Iran
10. India

What are their policies on LGBT? On abortion?

By the way. I find this list rather odd. Why is Nigeria on the list? Nigeria is an enormous country with lots of flourishing churches including some of the largest churches and denominations in the world. What Nigeria has is a lawless region to the north where there is lots of violence that affects Christians, but frankly everyone else too. Lots of girls get kidnapped up there but they are Christian and Muslim girls alike. That seems different to me than countries like Yemen or Saudi Arabia where Christianity is restricted and persecuted as a matter of government policy by Muslim-led governments. Ukraine is dangerous for Christians right now too, but that is because it is dangerous for all Ukrainians, not just the Christian ones. They are getting bombed because they are Ukrainians, not because they are Christians.

[GaryK]

I think secular laws should be based on secular arguments or rationale. So taking the example of gay marriage, if there are legitimate secular arguments to restrict gay marriage (or LGBT rights in general) then people can make those arguments and the legislative process can consider them. But I would oppose secular laws based only on religious arguments. That is tantamount to a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

A related example is polygamy. There are very legitimate secular reasons to prohibit polygamy. You can get into a tremendous mess with things like inheritance, custody, and so forth when you have polygamist marriages and divorce. If you have a family with 3 wives and one husband, and one wife files for divorce and leaves, who owes child support and alimony? Who gets custody of children? Who's names are even on the birth certificates of any children from a polygamist marriage? Who is entitled to social security and other government benefits? What are the inheritance rules if one spouse dies? It becomes a whole horrid mess to sort out. It may well be that the secular arguments against polygamy are still insufficient to outweigh the infringement on freedom and religion that such laws entail. But that is a proper argument for the legislatures and courts.

If one wants to make similar secular arguments against gay marriage. And those arguments are compelling enough to outweigh the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law then fine. I just don't think secular law should be based entirely on religious arguments.

As for Christian persecution. I fail to see how anyone's private relationship, gay or straight, has any effect on other citizens, Christian or otherwise. You may find it distasteful, but it isn't persecution to have to live in a society in which gay marriage is legal.

Much of this resonates with me.

I view all political systems as secular, which is why I believe the Kingdom of Jesus and these systems are not compatible.

[Ken]

I think secular laws should be based on secular arguments or rationale. So taking the example of gay marriage, if there are legitimate secular arguments to restrict gay marriage (or LGBT rights in general) then people can make those arguments and the legislative process can consider them. But I would oppose secular laws based only on religious arguments. That is tantamount to a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

A related example is polygamy. There are very legitimate secular reasons to prohibit polygamy. You can get into a tremendous mess with things like inheritance, custody, and so forth when you have polygamist marriages and divorce. If you have a family with 3 wives and one husband, and one wife files for divorce and leaves, who owes child support and alimony? Who gets custody of children? Who's names are even on the birth certificates of any children from a polygamist marriage? Who is entitled to social security and other government benefits? What are the inheritance rules if one spouse dies? It becomes a whole horrid mess to sort out. It may well be that the secular arguments against polygamy are still insufficient to outweigh the infringement on freedom and religion that such laws entail. But that is a proper argument for the legislatures and courts.

If one wants to make similar secular arguments against gay marriage. And those arguments are compelling enough to outweigh the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law then fine. I just don't think secular law should be based entirely on religious arguments.

As for Christian persecution. I fail to see how anyone's private relationship, gay or straight, has any effect on other citizens, Christian or otherwise. You may find it distasteful, but it isn't persecution to have to live in a society in which gay marriage is legal.

Much of this resonates with me.

I view all political systems as secular, which is why I believe the Kingdom of Jesus and these systems are not compatible.

Yes, and I believe people should be free to follow whatever religious laws or customs they believe in when they are within the religious sphere. So conservative religious ministers shouldn't be forced to conduct gay marriages. And churches should be free to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with or follow their moral code, whether it is related to marriage, dress, diet, professions, or anything else.

Most of the conflicts come in when the religious and secular worlds collide. Christians running a secular business that is open to the public, for example. That is where you have to balance out the rights of employees and customers against the rights of employers and it all gets very messy. Like, for example, a Catholic hospital that receives public subsidies and operates in a quasi-public manner, but wants to impose religious restrictions on employees or patients.

[barnhart]

It can be wearisome living in a pluralistic society, but historically this not new for the church. Before we look enviously toward authoritarianism to salve the discomfort, we need to think clearly about how that might work out.

[PetrChelcicky]

Am I the only one who understood the headline as "LGBT as promoters of Christian persecution"?
LGTB nowadays is an antipluralist/totalitarian movement whose goal is to crush all dissidents. They are still handicapped by some libertarian traditions, but they use all holes in the law and, from what I can see, they have no scruples. The only protection would be a clearcut general freedom of conscience.
Russian Christians ought better be fearful, or cautious at least.
For crying out loud, these are not meek individuals looking for their own lifestyle. These are hard-nosed professional activists. They make a living out of invoking menaces and dangers, identifying and destroying possible opponents. They get paid for it by the public with whose anxieties they play.
This is a particular kind of business people and they have nothing particular to do with being gay etc. The same kind of business model has been developped for other parts of the population.

[nett]

Some people seem to believe that we need governments that persecute LGBT because that will make life safer for us as Christians. The Ukraine thread made me wonder - what are the LGBT policies of countries that persecute Christians the most?

Here's a list of the top 10 countries Where It’s Hardest to Follow Jesus:

1. Afghanistan
2. North Korea
3. Somalia
4. Libya
5. Yemen
6. Eritrea
7. Nigeria
8. Pakistan
9. Iran
10. India

What are their policies on LGBT? On abortion?

I don't shared Christianity Today's opinion on what "makes it hard to follow Jesus", so there is no point in commenting on this list.

[nett]

I think secular laws should be based on secular arguments or rationale. So taking the example of gay marriage, if there are legitimate secular arguments to restrict gay marriage (or LGBT rights in general) then people can make those arguments and the legislative process can consider them. But I would oppose secular laws based only on religious arguments. That is tantamount to a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

A related example is polygamy. There are very legitimate secular reasons to prohibit polygamy. You can get into a tremendous mess with things like inheritance, custody, and so forth when you have polygamist marriages and divorce. If you have a family with 3 wives and one husband, and one wife files for divorce and leaves, who owes child support and alimony? Who gets custody of children? Who's names are even on the birth certificates of any children from a polygamist marriage? Who is entitled to social security and other government benefits? What are the inheritance rules if one spouse dies? It becomes a whole horrid mess to sort out. It may well be that the secular arguments against polygamy are still insufficient to outweigh the infringement on freedom and religion that such laws entail. But that is a proper argument for the legislatures and courts.

If one wants to make similar secular arguments against gay marriage. And those arguments are compelling enough to outweigh the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law then fine. I just don't think secular law should be based entirely on religious arguments.

As for Christian persecution. I fail to see how anyone's private relationship, gay or straight, has any effect on other citizens, Christian or otherwise. You may find it distasteful, but it isn't persecution to have to live in a society in which gay marriage is legal. Any more than it is Christian persecution to live in a society in which divorce is legal.

"secular" western morality is based on Judeo-Christian principles, except you make the individual god, which is incoherent.

"solely secular" is a way of either saying "based on Christian morality, but we don't want to admit it" , OR "Anti-Christ". There is no in between.

God created the world, and all natural law. You can't separate morality from the natural law.

[joshuabgood]

secular" western morality is based on Judeo-Christian principles,

What exactly are judeo-Christian principles? Inquiring minds want to know.