While restricting access to abortion has long been an integral part of the platform of the Republican Party, the the anti-choice efforts recently undertaken by Republican supermajority-controlled legislatures in states like TX, NC, OH, and WI are rather unprecedented in their rapidity, extent, and underhandedness. Most fervent anti-choicers will tell you they are morally opposed to abortion based on their Christian values. The same argument is used for the opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage. Many Christians feel that since their religion says a particular behavior is wrong, then laws must exist to prohibit that behavior, even if they aren't personally affected by it.
The obvious argument to this sentiment is that we are not and have never been a Christian nation, and therefore, have no business legislating based on arguments of religious morality, a position by which I strongly stand. But I want to challenge the point of view that good Christians should work to prohibit all (perceived) "unChristian" behavior through legislation. The idea is that if the Bible says a behavior is wrong, then Christians should work to stop everyone from engaging in that behavior. This practice would mean that the Christian faith is best honored by removing all temptation to sin.
Why is removing temptation treated like a hallmark of the Christian faith? How is it a testament to your personal commitment to your religion if you are free from sin because you have removed all opportunities to sin? Wouldn't it be a much, much stronger testament to your commitment if you remained free from sin IN THE FACE OF temptation? That approach would mean you remained true to your faith when you had many opportunities to not do so, opportunities which you watched others take, but you still managed to remain steadfast in your commitment.
When Gandhi assumed the life of an ascetic, he vowed to abstain from a host of wordly pleasures. How did he stay true to his vows and show his commitment? Did he retreat to an isolated area where he could be free from temptation? No, he surrounded himself with temptation, doing things like testing his vow of chastity by sleeping with naked women in his bed at night. He felt that approach was a much stronger statement to the strength of his faith to abstain from pleasures in an environment of constant temptation.
So I have to wonder - are Christians who are adamant about legislating based on their faith so worried about succumbing to sin that they feel they must remove all temptation? Or have they been tricked into thinking that faith-based legislation is the ideal way in which to honor their religion by outside forces intent on controlling society by restricting the rights of certain demographics? If the reason is the former, then that kind of feels like cheating to me, like bowling in lanes with bumpers, except these bumpers ruin people's lives and/or contribute to their deaths. I suspect the real reason is the latter, that outside influences are taking advantage of Christians' steadfast faith by convincing them they must support legislation restricting certain sections of the populations or else they are compromising their relationship with God. Are Christians really okay with being played like that?
No comments:
Post a Comment