Discrimination That Is Necessary For A Civil Society: A Response To David Gushee
Is it possible to embrace appropriate distinctions between social equality and uniformity of beliefs? |George Guthrie
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/september/discrimination-that-is-necessary-for-civil-society.html
Excerpted:
Chillingly, Gushee states, “Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.” What he means, of course, is that traditional beliefs on sexuality should be banished from the public square.
Thus, Rod Dreher ends his response to Gushee with a scenario of the “thought police” showing up at the door of those stubborn holdouts who refuse to affirm homosexual practice as morally neutral. Both literally and metaphorically, traditionalists are relegated to hiding in the basement. And whether or not Dr. Gushee would personally point the thought police to the basement, as Dreher suggests, he is fighting vigorously to place those who have beliefs on sexuality different from his in that basement below the public square.
As a member of our society, Dr. Gushee of course has the right to his beliefs about human sexuality. I affirm that right wholeheartedly, and, as a citizen I believe we should respect the dignity of everyone in society as equals, regardless of difference. Bullying of those in the LGBT community should not be tolerated.
But this civil posture is not the same thing as agreeing with Dr. Gushee and those who embrace non-traditional forms of sexuality on the nature of morality. Our beliefs are different. They should be able to coexist in the public square, just as when I as a Christian respect and live in social harmony with those who are Muslims, Jews, or Atheists.
Lengthy, intellectual but perhaps worth considering. And the writer, Guthrie, is on the conservative side of this issue. Whether it's easy to tell right off or not.
