Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Will People of Faith Live Now?
We knew when the incoherent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage came down last year that judges would ignore the law and impose gender-neutral marriage on the nation, as is now happening in several states. Our country will reap the whirlwind. So, my friends of faith, how are we now going to live?
I’ve been thinking a lot about this. We’re going to be walking a tightrope, but we must stick to our beliefs and build communities that are as impervious as possible to the whirlwind of terrible things that are coming: polygamy, polyamory, children bought and sold, recruitment to homosexuality, pressure to ignore gender differences, a changed understanding of fidelity and so on. In other words, we will have to build a religious view of marriage that is entirely different than the secular view and the communities that revolve around it. A religious view of marriage has existed in the past, but it was not wholly different than the secular one. Now it will have to be. We are going to have to resist state efforts to crush even this. Our whole lives are going to have to change.
We are going to have to build our own schools. There are lots of ways to implement the left’s agenda. For example, Minnesota is doing this through an “anti-bullying” law they recently passed. Expect children to be punished for behavior that suggests differences between boys and girls. Expect public schools to encourage children to be confused about whether they are a boy or a girl and to use whatever bathroom suits them, even if it makes other children uncomfortable. Expect schools to hammer home the idea that family is whatever anyone wants it to be. Expect them to denigrate the roles of mother and father.
We’re going to have to build our own schools and teach our children the truth about family. We’re going to have to teach them that the connection between mother, father, and children is sacred and that marriage makes it inviolable; that the ability to procreate is God-given and sacred. We’re going to have to teach them the importance of family ties to parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and children. We’re going to have to follow the admonition in Malachi and turn the hearts of the children to the fathers and vice versa. We can no longer expect government to support this.
We’ll be unable to follow certain professions. We won’t be able to be public school teachers in some states (with the possible exception of fields like math). We won’t be able to be certain kinds of doctors, such as those that deal with infertility. We won’t be able to be social workers, except perhaps for those specifically attached to churches. We’ll have to think carefully about what professions we pursue and all the attendant implications so that we do not further the destructive anti-family agenda of the left.
We’ll congregate in red states. We already know that some states are far friendlier to our values than others. I expect to see red states become redder and blue states become bluer. We’re going to have a lot easier time living by our values in some states than others.
We’re going to be fighting a lot more legal battles. Get ready to donate to the Alliance Defending Freedom and other groups that defend us. We’re going to need their help.
That’s the sad news, fellow faithful. But I guess the upside is that persecution strengthens faith, not only in us but in our children as well.
What other problems do you foresee, Ricochetti, and how can we resist?
Published in General
If I may add something:
Make peace with the Libertarians. Religious and individual liberties are under constant assault now. We won’t get anywhere in this cultural battle by fighting with and blaming the Libertarians for it all. They’re an easy target because they tend to support social reforms Progressives do, but for entirely different reasons, and because Libertarians are more likely to talk to us than Progressives are. When they do talk to us, it’s best not to start the discussion with, “This is all your fault.” Good Libertarians do not want to see coercive government for social policies any more than we do, and it’s time for us to realize that where the cultural battle is, they are our natural allies.
Welcome to the world of the Christian circa 200 AD. They faced many of the same challenges. As for your points:
I would not not worry about the long run. Religious people have more kids than irreligious folk. After two or three generations , the problem solves itself.
Seawriter
I would add another big requirement — we need to live our own lives as models of proper families. Many people see Christians as just a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to “family values,” and quite frankly, they aren’t completely wrong to think so. When Christians have similar rates of divorce, cohabitation, unwed parenthood, and the like as the rest of America, we lose any moral authority to tell others that our definition of the family is so much better it should be protected by law.
[Edited to add]
I’ve mentioned elsewhere my grandfather. He’s very upset about his church deciding to perform same-sex weddings. But he didn’t have a problem with the church allowing him to marry (and divorce) four times. It would be quite easy for a cynic to think that the only carnal sins he doesn’t approve of would be the ones he has no desire to commit, and there are a *lot* of cynics out there.
Big yes there. While I understand part of the church’s mission is to reach out to those with broken lives, we mustn’t encourage and create brokenness.
Amy–absolutely. And I think that will be one of the upsides of the general awfulness. People will be more conscious of the type of life they are living instead of just drifting with the general culture. But we also need to emphasize that we believe in repentance and forgiveness.
CUDoug–agreed. And I think smart libertarians, the kind we have here, will begin to see that making marriage gender neutral actually hinders their freedom agenda in a big way.
Seawriter–Even though the Constitution bars religious tests, I was thinking that there will be certain jobs we can’t do because we would have to violate our consciences to do them. We can’t teach some things, or facilitate some things. We can’t add to the degradation of our culture and so will have to avoid some professions.
Thank you. Very sincerely, thank you.
In the interests of good will, it goes both ways. Socially liberal libertarians — or, more often, libertarians who are tolerant and open to socially liberal ideas — need to understand that SoCons are much more their natural allies than liberals. The former wants government action in issues regarding marriage, family, and sexual morality: the other wants it in everything else.
Tom, am I missing something, or are lefties looking for government action in marriage, family and sexual morality?
I’m happy to be your ally whenever possible, however. I much prefer your positions in general to those of the left.
SSM itself, or the way it’s imposed? Those strike me as very different issues that have — thanks to the Left — been utterly conflated.
Hmmm… I may need to amend that:
SoCons want government action in those realms (to preserve existing institutions, etc); liberals also want it in those realms (for other reasons), as well as in everything else.
Well, it is up to the courts to decide whether we have to violate our consciences to do certain jobs. Further, if the courts do, civil disobedience comes into play.
If religious people cede the field, there is no challenge to the norms. We must challenge these norms, and we must fight for our rights as free people. As I said earlier, freedom isn’t free. I will add a fine old quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Like I said, think third-century Christianity.
Seawriter
Both, Tom. The implications of gender neutral marriage are legion–what is taught in schools and all the rest. It brings government into the family sphere far more than before. Did you see MarciN’s post on Dougs thread about the Oregon decision? Once gay adoption was legalized in MA, it became much easier to have your children taken away by social services and guess where many of them end up.
I agree, Seawriter, we have to resist in every way possible. But I think in some professions the challenges, at least for the foreseeable future will be so great that it will be just better to avoid those professions. You don’t want to spend your whole professional life fighting the system. When the assumptions are so antithetical to what you believe you would be in trouble all the time and just banging your head against the wall.
No, I didn’t. Link?
Here’s the link, Tom. Comment #16.
http://ricochet.com/thoughts-on-mondays-federal-court-ruling/#comment-2567205
Well, I spent a good chunk of my professional life fighting the system. Sometimes the system won, and sometimes I won. I did not get as far ahead as I would had if I had got along to get along. But on the other hand, none of my decisions killed a Space Shuttle crew (as one or two might have if I had got along), so I can live with that.
If yours is not the personality to fight, that is fine. Everyone is different. Some glory in the battle (remember Andrew Breitbart?). But if no one fights, the battle is lost, and evil triumphs. So, no. Christians should not concede professions to pagans.
Seawriter
This seems like more a problem with DCF — which I gather really is awful here in MA — than with SSM.
There’s a SoCon tendency in these debates to look at how SSM makes something already very bad marginally worse, and then ascribe all the harm to SSM. That’s how I see the issues with the florists, bakers, and photographers: the problem isn’t the SSM angle itself, but how SSM advocacy is used to violate citizen rights through public accommodation laws. The problem is the public accommodation laws.
I’ll support anyone who wants to fight, Seawriter. I hate personal conflict, so would not be the one to enter an profession that meant a constant battle, but more power to the ones who will!
The two are inseparably combined, Tom. That’s the point Socons have been trying to make all along.
On that we disagree. I think the whole florist/photographer/baker issue has simply exposed a long-standing injustice that was — 50 years ago — necessary to correct for the even greater injustices of Jim Crow.
We’re only just now noticing how badly our rights have been abridged. SSM is the catalyst, not the cause of this injustice.
Well, Tom, nothing exists in a vacuum. Redefining marriage makes that problem worse and exacerbates or creates a whole lot of other problems.
A little persecution may just be good for American Christianity.
A big problem I see is the fact that Americans Christians seem to think their view of the world will just be handily accepted in society. It will not be. Jesus told us we’d be hated and despised. We had a nice peaceful time in America where we weren’t hated and despised, and it made us weak. We’ve forgotten how revolutionary our faith is, and the power it has to transform the world. We should not be worried one iota about what is coming. God will not fall out of Heaven. He doesn’t have a Plan B.
I’m the product of public schools, and my children received decent secondary educations in Colorado and Utah.
But as more and more mandated culturally-offensive requirements get fed to our kids through the pubic schools, I can see some of my grandchildren perhaps going to private schools. Even here in Utah, we’re beginning to see more and more small private high schools joining the Catholic schools that have existed for many years, and the Catholic system is growing (two large Catholic high schools in the SLC area).
The public schools here are not about the collapse, but even in this reddest of red states, we’re seeing some nibbling around the edges.
This will be a big issue in the next twenty years.
Actually, on the upside as well, this will be good for education.
Spin, the strengthening of Christianity is another upside.
Agreed. Two books that come to mind are Daniel and 1 Corinthians. Christians need to a.) look after their own conduct, and b.) continue to reach out to a culture going its own way.
Politically, I agree with making common cause with libertarians. Social conservatives and libertarians may not agree on same-sex marriage. But they should agree that the government shouldn’t force a Christian to participate in the celebration against his conscience. If black parents can be in the same party as the teacher’s union, this shouldn’t be that hard.
(Having built up good will, I now proceed to blame libertarians…) The trick is getting libertarians to engage with the Republican party. I know many who won’t vote Republican until the party is 100% pure, but without them the party has to go more moderate to win. Even if they do show up at a Republican function, the minute they don’t get the candidate they want, they’re gone.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m saying that the injustice of not allowing businesses to choose their own customers freely existed prior to SSM — and would persist after its appeal — but that SSM brought the injustice to light to SoCons. Heck, it’s only become something I care about much because its application here has been so unjust.
By way of imperfect analogy, Massachusetts’ (unjust) firearm laws didn’t bother me too much until I attempted to purchase a new one: every time I find a model that met the specifications I was looking for, I discovered that the [expletives] on Beacon Hill have not approved it for sale.* The law was just as bad before I noticed it, and it’ll be just as bad if the specific firearms I want are approved tomorrow.
* Yes, seriously: the state legislature has a list of “approved” firearms (as, I gather, does CA); all others are banned. And yes, I often wonder why I live here.
It shouldn’t force anyone to participate in such ceremonies.
Yes, I’m familiar with RFRA, but we really shouldn’t invite the courts to judge the legitimacy and nature of our conscience claims. If it’s not worth compelling in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, it shouldn’t be law.
More of “us” will be moving to places like Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
We cannot withdraw into our own little Christian ghettos. We must remain (be) salt and light to a decaying society. Unfortunately, one of the lamentable consequences of the Fundamentalist controversies in the early 1900s was such ghettoization. The Moral Majority movement in the 70s and 80s attempted to influence politics (which we should do) at the expense of other areas of cultural life (such as the arts) in favor of creating “Christian” versions of the secular world rather than “infiltrating” Hollywood, the music industry, the high arts, popular art, etc.
That said, another thing that must be done is to carefully consider how we spend our money and simply refuse to pay for products or services from entities we know to be antagonistic to us. For example, were I a SunTrust bank customer, I’d have closed my accounts first thing this past Monday in response to this regardless of it’s subsequent reversal.
http://barbwire.com/2014/05/17/sun-trust-bank-reverses-severing-ties-benham-brothers-pro-life-views/
If enough people quietly and without rancor stop spending money on such places, the message will be made.
Now to sell those Brk.b shares…
Question: Given that we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, how then shall we put this into practice with the social, cultural, and political movements going on now?