Is it disrespectful to Christianity to force nonbelievers to follow our laws?
It seems like many Christians try to get our own moral code established as law (or keep it established as law, I should say)
One good example is gay marriage. While I can think of about half a dozen reasons why it should not be allowed in a Christian marriage, none of those reasons apply to a government marriage, so I stay out of any discussions about gay marriage on a government level.
However, when our fellow Christians try to get nonbelievers to follow our laws, doesn't that water them down a little bit? The whole idea of Christianity's moral code is that you should WANT to follow it, if you are forced to it defeats the purpose. So, by forcing others to follow our moral code, are we undermining the purpose it served in the first place?
Just want to hear everybody's opinion on the matter.
Misty2008-01-09T07:10:10Z
Favorite Answer
Unfortunately, I do not come down squarely on either side of this issue. I agree with you and then I don't. I guess that makes me wishy-washy...something I hate!
I can see your point and have even made that point at times. Take religion and religious morality out of government and there is no reason not to allow gay marriage. From a purely secular point of view it is perfectly within the laws and rights of the individuals.
But, as much as we would like to claim a separation...it filters into our schools, taught to our children, and even though as Christian parents we raise our kids to understand morals and values based on our religious beliefs, we cannot stop this kind of thinking from invading the minds of our children and even ourselves.
So I guess for me it goes both ways, while one might say we should not force our beliefs on others...also the secular beliefs should not be forced on me. But I find they are. I am forced to allow my tax money to fund abortions and other morally offensive acts.
My children should not be taught things that I find morally and religiously offensive any more than those who are offended by morality and religion should have their children taught these things.
I think the problem is that the world beliefs have become the accepted norm and Christianity is outside that. It used to be that Christian beliefs were the norm. But this is no longer so.
But we are all knitted together as the fabric of humanity. We exist together and are intimately interconnected. We cannot be Christians and not interact with the world. We have to. So, I think that we should work to change laws for the good of humanity, which includes the knowledge of eternal life. God doesn't exist becasue we believe or do not believe. He exists...period! We have an obligation to stand up for Christ, and for humanity.
I don't think we should be angry about it, but consistent about it. I march at the Pro-Life march in DC every year. It is prayerful and peaceful. We are just a presence saying, this is an abomination. If one persons heart is changed, than it is worth it. I think with the gay marriage and other moral issues, we need to keep up the constant, respectful stance even as the world is swept down the easy road. It's still worthwhile to stand up for the truth.
Well, we who believe this is a Christian Nation, are always told that it is not, so what laws are we talking about?
If we are not a Christian Nation then the laws set forth in our country are secular laws. Put in place by our representative government.
Btw, those that don't want Gay's to marry are not all Christians.
Put the Gay marriage issue on the ballot as a referendum and let that settle it. But the Gay community doesn't want that because it would be voted down by a wide margin. Just as abortion would be if it was ever on any ballot.
But, personally I think we should get our government out of the marriage business completely and have no such thing as being "legally married."
Paul taught in various places that we shouldn't expect nonChristians to act like Christians; but we should hold each other accountable within the church.
There are parts of morality within the Bible that are, as they should be, encoded in the law--don't kill, don't steal, etc. But these are laws that protect people from being harmed. Such morality is basic to the Bible, but not limited to it.
As for harming Christian marriage, I've tried hard to figure out how that would happen, and can't think of any ways my marriage would be threatened by it. But my thoughts have been more centered on gay Christians and how the marriage issue affects them. I wanted them treated fairly.
I confess, this has been a hard issue for me to face and I'm still dealing with it. But, pretty much have come to the same conclusions you just voiced. Thanks for saying it so much better than I could!
I realize that what I'm about to say has been said enough times so that it has become trite, but here it is again: No religion's adherents have the right to legislate morality on the general public.
I add the following: No religion's adherents should attempt to insinuate their dogma on the unbelieving and the unwilling. No religion's adherents should attempt any disruption of the proper and necessary separation of church and state. This is the 21st century, not the era of Inquisition.
Add: But I notice a few here who would love to go back to the days of the Inquisition. Lion of Judah would prosper there. Too bad for him that he was born way too late.
The point our forefathers were making concerning our democratic republic is not to satisfy every individual's views regarding how we adopt and legislate civil or criminal law in in society, for that would be impossible, although each and every vote is very important, but rather have the majority consensus concerning laws of society. You are looking at only one side of a coin, as-it-were, here with your Q, that being most likely a secularist minority vote having to obey laws that are established by a majority who espouse to a Judeo-Christian ethic of life.
What happens if its just the opposite? Is this somehow more fair in your eyes because the traditionalist must submit to laws that they don't agree with? You may say that it doesn't involve their private lives, like the inverse would. Really? You don't see that there's actually even greater ramifications for the traditionalist than it is now for the secularist in America. For example, if ENDA, as it was written, gets voted in as is then most likely the Boy Scouts of America will have to close its doors, traditionalist bosses will have to hire folks who publicize ungodly lifestyles, even at their place of employment, and also tolerate men in women's bathrooms, and women in men's, else be fined and possibly forced to close their doors if they don't. And, if gay marriage becomes law around the country, this will actually make the sanctity of traditional marriage much more irrelevant to our culture than it already is, due to cohabitation and no-fault divorce laws. Just as in many continental Europe countries, youth will not marry any longer as a whole, but choose much more to cohabit or join in a civil union, bonding out of convenience rather than life long commitment. Btw, the average length of lesbian coupling is 5 to 6 years, and gay male coupling is only 1 and half to two years, with still averaging arrangements with 8 other homosexual relationships during that time period, according to a Dutch study from 2002. Now do you see that the cost is not only just as great personally, and culturally, but greater? I sure hope you do.