Comments for Law, Religion, and Ethics

Comment on N.T. Wright on Slippery Slopes by Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:18:08 +0000

It is an interesting phenomenon that Wright describes– differences between the political leanings of religious conservatives in the US and UK. But I’m not sure it’s quite accurate to say that US evangelicals “borrow” right-leaning political views from Catholic Social Teaching. In fact, I’d be quite surprised if this were so. Seems more likely that there are some common elements or parallels arising from their own sources, traditions, and thinking.

Comment on Eco-terrorists, Anti-Abortion Terrorists, and the Media by David Opderbeck

David Opderbeck — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:01:25 +0000

Maybe you’re right Bob. But if there’s such a dynamic at work, isn’t it also because of the role religion, particularly Christianity, plays in the pro-life movement? Christians who are pro-life are, after all, supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus, so when violence is done in the name of the pro-life cause, the question of hypocrisy properly looms large. And there is unfortunately the long and sordid history of violence being done in the name of Jesus throughout history (I’m mid-way through Thomas Asbridge’s excellent new history of the crusades, and was reading about the seige of Acre last night — gruesome). So maybe we pro-life Christians really do have more to answer for than non-religious or new-agey environmentalists.

Comment on Gay Rights v. Freedom of Association? by Limited Company

Limited Company — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:20:23 +0000

Who are christians to dictate who can and can’t marry…

Comment on Judge Walker and Sin by Randy King

Randy King — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:56:11 +0000

In order to drive his point home; Walker has equated what you do with who you are. Walker is basing his findings on the 1998 Romer v case because it is settled law, but he conveniently ignores the 2006 Nebraska ruling that:

1) There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage

2) Procreation is a rational basis

Same sex enthusiasts appealed this ruling to SCOTUS, but were turned away at the door for want of a constitutional question. If Romer v is over-riding precedence as Walker contends is stands to reason that SCOTUS would have over-turned Nebraska on appeal, but they did not.

Comment on Calling politicians out—dilemma, duty, or disaster? by Richard Painter

Richard Painter — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:08:04 +0000

Our Governor is a man of firm faith and conviction. I don’t agree with him about citizenship for children born in the United States, and I do not agree with him about the New York City Mosque. Many countries would not allow either, and I believe the United States is a better place in part because we allow both. The Constitution will not be amended as suggested, and persons of any faith are free to build houses of worship on private property.

At the same time, our Governor is right on many other issues. There is also little evidence that he is taking these positions because of politics and does not in fact believe what he says. I question his position on these issues but I see no basis for questioning his integrity.

Comment on Calling politicians out—dilemma, duty, or disaster? by John ODonnell

John ODonnell — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:04:16 +0000

I agree with your comments about Tim Pawlenty. I’m also in Minnesota, so I’m more than familiar with him and his positions. I wouldn’t discount the local press printing a letter, particularly if it were framed in a less blatent religious foundation. Perhaps frame it as a “common good” argument. Whatever channel you may choose, I think it is important to “call out” people who speak as Pawlenty does. He and his compatriots are divisive and dishonest in what they say. Even if we only say it to one other person, it needs to be said.

Comment on Calling politicians out—dilemma, duty, or disaster? by Robert Cochran

Robert Cochran — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:05:09 +0000

Maybe he would read a private letter. I was impressed by the story Barack Obama told in his “Call to Renewal” speech of being influenced by a letter from a pro-life doctor. See: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5454

Or a public letter might work. See MLK’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” I have always been impressed by the tone of that letter, as much as its substance. Recall that it was written to King’s fellow clergy. He concludes:

“If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

“I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Comment on Polyamory: A New Protected Sexual Orientation? by Robert Cochran

Robert Cochran — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:31:16 +0000

Again, the argument of the article I linked in the original post is that polyamorists should have anti-discrimination protection. I also do not see any discrimination to be combated. I suspect it is an attempt to gain cultural legitimacy through law for the practice. At some point, I suspect there will be arguments for the rights that accompany marriage (tax benefits, hospital visitation, etc).

The significance of polyamory is that it gives us a picture of life a bit further down the road we are already on. Ultimately, the question will be, why give any special status to any marriage relationship? In my view, once we go past monogamous, husband and wife marriage, there is no stopping place. The same arguments that are currently made for gay marriage will be made for every combination. That may not be a tragedy. I suspect the practice of marriage will ultimately survive all sorts of attempts at legal redefinition.

Comment on Polyamory: A New Protected Sexual Orientation? by Marie Failinger

Marie Failinger — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:09:14 +0000

Great topic, Bob. This discussion reinforces the brokenness of the human condition, and, I guess, the role of law in trying to deal with that brokenness. From a Christian perspective, almost any form of human relationship shares in aspects of divine goodness and human sin, even the traditional monogamous marriage. As some of the posts suggest, law cannot identify, ensure or protect a “perfect” relationship in conditions of sin. What it can perhaps do is to identify the least worst options and give them the limited amounts of protection it can to preserve as much of people’s dignity and circumstances as possible in a situation of brokenness. Although it seems to me that my children’s different generation has a somewhat different take on this, the following seem true in my observation:
a)sexual intimacy creates a relationship, if only of a commercial kind (e.g., I’m satisfying my wants using another person, for which I’m willing to pay in a limited way). Whether it is distinctive among relationships, whether we want it to be distinctive in some way is a conversation we need to have anew in this culture. Whether we want to draw the dividing line for valued/protected intimate relationships at a different place between exploitative/abusive and agapaic than tradition currently draws it, and reinforce that line with law or social sanctions, is worth more discussion in this age where sexual variety is seemingly accepted as one form of (good) human diversity.
b)in a condition of sin, satisfying one’s desires (more or less)is not per se good (or evil), even when it is not immediately apparent that it “hurts” anybody else, because human desire or “need” is just as flawed as anything else. Think of the desire for food, which varies a lot from person to person–it is not necessarily good to eat as much as we desire because we need food and it is “natural” for us to do so.
c)if we are made for love,as Christians and others would say, then we need to be brutally honest with ourselves about both the limits of our capacity for love and the actual relationship between love and sexuality. I am very skeptical, for example, that most men can truly love, as in give their life for, even one person, much less more. As a woman, I know how hard it is for women, even when it is their child. If men claim they can really “love” many women (or vice-versa), I would like to see the evidence. If they claim that it’s all right to have sex and walk away from some or all without love or commitment, then we can have a discussion about what they do morally with the fact that perhaps their partner can’t do that. (Assumption of risk, the usual retort, seems to me an empty response here.)
Similarly, the reports of polyamorous folks or even polygamous families where the women support each other, including the one here, suggest that polyamory or polygamy is no cure-all for what ails monogamy. On the other hand, the legal paradigm of monogamy has historically encouraged polyamorous men toward their worst instincts, which is to satisfy their desires and move on, leaving behind devastated paramours and vulnerable children in their wake. How can that be good?
At bottom, until we can figure this out in a modern age of (relative) sexual equality in Western countries, it behooves us all, I think, not to simply “mind our own business” on sex as we are trained to do in this culture, but call family and friends to accountability on what we perceive to be sexual practices which are damaging human lives and spirits, or threatening to do so. That starts with our partners and our kids.

Comment on Polyamory: A New Protected Sexual Orientation? by David Opderbeck

David Opderbeck — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:09:58 +0000

Bob, I’d echo Steve’s comment — isn’t “polyamory” already legally protected, or at least not prohibited? In the NYC Metro area where I live, “polyamory” seems to be the norm, at least among many young people. There isn’t any law, at least not any enforceable law, against sleeping with multiple partners at once. Nor are there laws against contraception, probably a necessary condition for polyamory — didn’t Griswold nail that one? But I guess polyamorous people want accommodations in hiring and so on?

BTW I’m only using the term “polyamorous” here because that’s what the linked article used — seems like a silly category to me, given that every normal human being has the capacity to love and have sex with more than one person. Is any person with hormones not “polyamorous” by orientation? We become monogamous, if we do, by choice.