tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post7305582002075066711..comments2023-05-14T03:44:54.726-05:00Comments on CourageMan: Rule, BrittaniaCourageManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-2949811228919558522007-10-14T09:38:00.000-05:002007-10-14T09:38:00.000-05:00Having done more research, this law is unjust, but...Having done more research, this law is unjust, but for a reason which Mark did not mention at all, and which you only gestured at. <BR/><BR/>According to an English priest I know who is more knowledgeable about the English legal scene than I am, the law itself defines "inciting hatred" subjectively. That is, if X feels that Y has "incited hatred" against them, then Y is guilty. If my informant is correct, then that makes the law ipso facto wrong, and had I had this information at the beginning, I would not have said anything in defense of the law. <BR/><BR/>However, I stand by my critique of Mark's original post. The article he linked to did not justify the tagline he gave, and it was sloppy to tag the article that way without providing a further argument showing why a law against "inciting hatred" would automatically lead to anyone who defended the Church's teaching going to jail.<BR/><BR/>And had you linked your critique to the law's text, rather than to things gay activists say, I would also not have objected.<BR/><BR/>But I remain committed to the idea that justice involves having laws which are impartial arbiters. I'm as firmly opposed to a concept of the law in which we Christians try to gain maximal leverage against those who oppose us, while the opposition tries to get maximal leverage against us. Nobody can get justice under those conditions.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14585850048651449975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-7715584996423105622007-10-12T18:49:00.000-05:002007-10-12T18:49:00.000-05:00Our disagreement, Ron, is over the following point...Our disagreement, Ron, is over the following points:<BR/><BR/><I>But a law against inciting hatred is a just law.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think it is possible to state "X is a just law" in an abstract realm, separate from all concrete considerations. A law against "inciting hatred" is not just in a society that considers Christianity to be inciting hatred. And I'll take it to the extreme -- a Catholic theocracy would be a terrible form of government for existing contemporary Sweden or Saudi Arabia.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>in which certain Christians will not support even basic protections against violence for homosexuals</I><BR/><BR/>I can't speak for Mark Shea obviously (though I doubt he'd disagree with what follows), but that is not on point. The proposed law is not a post-hoc hate-crime law (I oppose them too; though on all counts, not just gayness), but a prior-restraint incitement law. In other words, no violence has occurred; only speech.<BR/><BR/>Further, we are not in a world where homosexuals do not "have basic protections against violence" and concessions-for-appearance do not appease when based on falsehood (they merely embolden). I know of no Christian who thinks homosexuals should not be covered by the same laws against assault, robbery, murder, etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I do not disagree with you that the law may well be used to suppress Christian teaching. But that is because those in power have lost respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see that "losing respect for the rule of law" is the problem, but rather the opposite. To take an easy example, liberals wouldn't bother either to [try to] justify "the right of privacy" or actually put it in constitutional texts (which they have succeeded in doing in several states) if they didn't have respect for the rule of law. I know you know that justice and law are different things, which is why I made my "words to work with" point. What I was getting it is that incitement laws enable persecution of Christians to be compatible with the rule of law. I agree that in a Nero situation, the law doesn't matter. But we are dealing with a legal-managerial state where they do.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you're made of sterner stuff than me, Ron, but I am not prepared to languish in prison for speaking and writing the truth about God's plan for human sexuality. Or to be more precise, I am not prepared to say that I am willing, have reason to believe I might not be, and would really rather not be put to the test. To paraphrase Amy's Flannery O'Connor quote: I'm no saint and could only be a martyr if they kill me real quick.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-69056388785006693352007-10-11T09:48:00.000-05:002007-10-11T09:48:00.000-05:00This is a quick response, which is probably a bit ...This is a quick response, which is probably a bit repetitive and longer than it should be, because I don't have time to go back, edit, and condense my thoughts--I'm in the middle of the semester with grad school, and have a bunch of reading to get done this morning before a conference this afternoon.<BR/><BR/>From <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes" REL="nofollow">A Man for All Seasons</A>:<BR/> <BR/>William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! <BR/>Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? <BR/>William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! <BR/>Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!<BR/><BR/>I am well aware of the gay rights advocates who view any criticism of homosexuality as "incitement to violence." I am also aware of Christians who oppose any concession to gay rights on the grounds that it is one step down a slippery slope to the persecution of Christians.<BR/><BR/>However, I believe in the rule of law. In a fallen world, everyone's peace and happiness depends on the fair and just application of laws that respect and uphold human dignity. <BR/><BR/>I know full well how this law may be applied. But a law against inciting hatred is a just law. I am prepared to fight, and if necessary to languish in prison, for speaking and writing the truth about God's plan for human sexuality. But, naive or not, I believe in the fair application of just laws. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you and Mark are falling into a tribalist mentality, in which certain Christians will not support even basic protections against violence for homosexuals, for fear of losing their freedom of speech, and certain homosexuals will not support even basic religious freedom for Christians, for fear of persecution. <BR/><BR/>I can read the signs of the times. I know that Christians are being more and more marginalized. I also am not naive about how the laws are being turned against us. But I still believe in the rule of law and in supporting laws which are rooted in the natural law and which protect fundamental human rights. I have very little hope that the next few decades will see those in power showing greater respect for the rule of law--the signs, both on the left and the right, point the other way. <BR/><BR/>I need only look to Thomas More to see that defending the integrity of the law does not necessarily provide any protection in this fallen world. <BR/><BR/>But it seems to me that the "realism" that you and Mark have embraced is really consequentialism: we have to oppose a law that is (in itself) just in order to protect the future of our tribe. <BR/><BR/>So I do not disagree with you that the law may well be used to suppress Christian teaching. But that is because those in power have lost respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights. It becomes more and more a matter of different groups competing for the levers of power in order to impose their own will on others. <BR/><BR/>I'm strongly opposed to this. But in the political realm, my loyalty is to the rule of law, not my "tribe." I haven't read the text of the law in question. If there is something in the text of the law that is unjust, then I would oppose it on those grounds. But if the law itself is just, then my fight would not be against the law--it would be against the forces that seek to use the law unjustly. <BR/><BR/>To oppose the law itself seems to me simply to reinforce the idea that Christians <B>want</B> in incite hatred and violence against gays, which reinforces the idea that protecting gays from hatred and violence requires suppressing Christian belief. <BR/><BR/> - RonRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14585850048651449975noreply@blogger.com