The Hutchinson News
Sunday, May 20, 2012 B5
OPINION
WESTERN FRONT
ON THE RIGHT
Protecting the process Let’s be clear ... the proposed remediation to legislative invocations in our community does not prevent or inhibit Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Pastafarians or any other person who identifies with a particular belief system from praying, not praying or giving homage to their God, goddess, multiple gods or even no god at all. On the contrary, the issue being considered by the Reno County Commission is exactly how government can guarantee that all religious liberty is protected from encroachment by other religions (or “non-religions”) that might compete within and therefore sully the governmental process. The protection of one religion must, at all costs, be extended to the protection of all religions. This includes those religions that might be different than the one you are used to. In fact, those other religions might be so very different, as to be diametrically opposed to beliefs of your religion. The ability of government to enact these protections requires that it take an indisputably neutral position on the subject of religion. Indeed, citizens of the U.S. are afforded the most liberal religious freedoms in the world. The First Amendment ensures that you and I are allowed to pursue whatever religion we wish. No matter how silly or unreasonable it may sound to our neighbors. This freedom is extended into all facets of our society, right up to the edge of government. It is at this precipice that we must, unanimously, stand up with one common voice and demand that our government reject the temptations to adopt, endorse or participate in any religion so that our government may remain beyond reproach in its efforts to serve as a voice for all people regardless of their religious beliefs. Society-at-large will naturally ferret out the most extreme in favor of the moderates. However, it is not in the interest of government to weigh in on which religion is right or wrong. This is not a simple task put before our local officials. Allowing one religion to pursue their practices in the form of legislative invocations may be in direct conflict with others, having the chilling effect of cultivating a non-inclusive environment in our governmental process. The last thing any of us should want is a government that takes sides on the issues of religions. I do not envy the Reno County Commission’s decision as it is certainly wrought with deeply emotional conflict. However, one option seems to stand above all others. A moment of silence has been offered as a possible solution to this dilemma and may meet the diversity test. It seems that everyone’s needs are met by allowing silent invocation for those that wish to participate, while also not alienating other citizens that may not subscribe to that type of belief system. To adopt an alternative will surely doom our community to more polarizing debate. While not true for all, most of us don’t want that. ROB MATTOX Hutchinson
JOIN THE DISCUSSION The News encourages readers to share their opinions on this page. Write a letter to the Western Front on any topic. Send to The News at 300 W. Second Ave., Hutchinson, KS, 67504-0190; fax to 620-662-4186 or e-mail to westernfront@hutchnews.com. Letters should be limited to 500 words. Poems, consumer complaints, business testimonials and group-written letters will not be accepted. Please sign your name and provide your address and a phone number so we may call to verify the letter. We strive to publish letters within one week of verification. Western Front letters are subject to editing for space considerations and libel concerns.
Cal Thomas
The president’s ‘other gospel’
Same-sex marriage: Empathy or right? WASHINGTON – There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views. No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy. At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until yesterday, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times. The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position. Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage. Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights – and just as inviolable. Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting
Charles Krauthammer states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination. Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias and “serves no purpose ... other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.” Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand(ing) rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights. Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum
of respect. No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction. Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution – a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being – given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped. He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for U.S. senator and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again. When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine. Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility to proponents of traditional marriage – a place he is loath to go. True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through. Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
It is one thing to talk about “fairness” when it comes to allowing gays and lesbians to marry; it is quite another to claim biblical authority for such relationships. President Obama cited the “Golden Rule” about treating others as you would like to be treated, but in doing so he ignored the totality of Scripture and the Lord Himself, who alone gets to set the rules for human behavior. The president says he is a “practicing Christian.” It is difficult to be one while simultaneously holding a low view of the Bible, which his position on several social issues might suggest. The same Book that informs him about the Person he told Pastor Rick Warren in 2008 is his “Savior,” also speaks to the beginning of human life (he has done nothing to limit abortions), fornication between adults of the opposite sex (no word yet on his position on that subject), marriage, and adultery, which the Seventh Commandment and New Testament passages condemn. I recently wrote that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people who believe the Bible is God’s Word to impose their beliefs on those who disagree with them. But it is something altogether different for those who disagree to claim the Bible doesn’t say what it says, in effect calling God a liar. President Obama apparently hopes there are sufficient numbers of biblical illiterates – and he could be right about this – who either won’t notice his sleight of hand, or don’t care. Thousands of years of human history have sustained marriage between one man and one woman. Even human biology testifies to a natural order. Genesis 2:24 says “...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two shall become one flesh.” Jesus, Whom President Obama likes to selectively quote when it suits his earthly political agenda, honored traditional marriage at a wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1). He also reaffirmed the Genesis passage in Matthew 19:5. Paul, the Apostle of Jesus, wrote in Ephesians 5 about husbands and wives, male and female. Scripture teaches that the marriage union between a man and woman is an illustration of how Christ and the church are one (Ephesians 5:32). It also teaches that since God made us, conceived of marriage and created sex to be enjoyed within the marital bond, He gets to set the rules and establish the boundaries for human behavior, not because He is a curmudgeon who wants to deny us pleasure, but because He knows what is best for us. Liberal theologians have tried to modify, or even change, what is contained in the Bible and there are those in our time who are following their example with the issue of same-sex marriage. People are free to accept or reject what Scripture says. What they are not free to do is to claim it says something it does not. In modern times that’s called “spin.” In an earlier time it was called heresy. The Apostle John warns in Revelation 22:18-19 about the punishment awaiting anyone who adds to, or subtracts from Scripture. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 has a similar warning. The consequences aren’t pretty. There are also warnings not to preach “another Gospel” (Galatians 1:8, 2 Corinthians 11:4, among others). As he seeks to justify his position on same-sex marriage and other issues that are either questionable at best, or deny Scripture at worst, President Obama might be said to be preaching another gospel. This could possibly lead to a fissure in his solid support among African Americans, costing the president votes in November. It will also likely galvanize the culture warriors. Minorities mostly vote for Democrats, but they don’t like their faith denied. That could cause some of them to stay home on Election Day, or even vote for Mitt Romney. The negative reaction the president received from some of the African-American ministers he called last week after declaring his support for same-sex marriage should serve as a prophetic warning. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.