This posting on ReligiousFreaks.com made me write a comment that turned into quite the extensive rundown, so I decided to present the brief listing on the site and simply link to this blog entry for the rest. 
The main question: I’d like to hear what my Christian readers feel about this. Are we you wasting to much time and effort on gay marriage and abortion? What do you feel are the most important problems that we face today?
One of the biggest wastes of time that Christians make with issues is their insistence upon using religious-based arguments when speaking in a non-religious-based forum. By this I mean that using the Bible, for instance, to justify your belief in the evils of homosexuality might work very well while you’re in your own church. However, once you start speaking in a public forum, you must drop the Bible as a primary source of knowledge. This does not automatically make the Bible evil; it just acknowledges that the truths within are really beliefs, not universal truths, and to many, won’t count in an argument — in fact, all it will do is make you look like a fool because you can’t argue the issues on commonly-accepted truths (science and logic, in particular). My mother and I stopped talking about issues several years ago simply for the fact that I wanted to argue in terms of globally-accepted axioms and she continually wanted to intersect these with Biblically-based faith statements. We were simply not on the same page, so the argument was null and void. THIS, I feel, is the biggest waste of time that Christians make when arguing divisive issues.
I think most issues should follow a thought pattern similar to the following (in order of importance) to ensure that their influence(s) are gauged correctly:
1) The safety of the fellow human: By placing this item first, before #2 (individual), we ensure that our thoughts are always geared towards philanthropy. Laws, mandates, and restrictions are put in place to protect everyone, but they are most often placed there to protect someone else from a travesty. Now, this is a touchy subject, because some people have more good will in their bones than what calls for in the situation and tend to force what they feel is good for them on other people for bad reasons. Thus, anything that falls within this category should be strongly cross-calculated against the other three points to ensure that you’re not just impressing your personal beliefs on the populace.
2) The impact the issue has on each of our individual lives, either now or in the future: Much of what we argue about either doesn’t affect us much individually or affects us in a manner that is much less than how vehement we are being. I would wager that most of us would not be adversely affected by two gay men living in the house next to us and getting married. I suspect our quality of life wouldn’t change, our children would be safe, our neighborhood wouldn’t decline, and our property values would be stable. People have a tendency to argue far beyond what they really will be influenced by and instead follow a groupthink policy — this is wasted effort.
3) the probability of change given effort – Although we’re always allowed to be idealists, we must also be realists and accept what we can change and what we can’t and get on with our lives afterwards. One thing that I think falls into this category is the poor/hungry. This is a class of people that always has existed in the past, exists now, and most likely will exist for all eternity. To think otherwise is to deny history and simple economics. Thus, while I am all for caring about our fellow human, I’m generally against the idea that we should be making massive efforts to save the poor/hungry based on the idea that it most likely will be a futile effort. At best, we’ll simply raise the bar of what it is considered to be “poor” and make no progress beyond that. Wasted effort here is believing you can change, quickly and permanently, something that has a long and prestigious history.
4) The moral or ethical implications of the issue in terms of widely-held beliefs – Now, I hear what you’re saying. “This is contradictory to your above argument about sticking to logic and universal truths.” Somewhat, yes, but somewhat no. There’s a reason it is 4th on the list. Here’s where the distinction comes in: After basing everything within logic and truth, a slight step up (and I mean slight) is to apply widely-accepted truths. For instance, murder. Most people, around the world, consider murder to be evil. Not ALL people, but most. Thus, arguments can be made that Murder Is Bad(tm) based on the truth that many people believe it is bad. Now, Christians often push this idea beyond its reasonable boundaries. “The United States is a Christian Nation,” they shout, “thus we must base policy upon the idea that most people accept Christian beliefs as true!” Well, no. While at one point in our history you might have been able to make that claim (although I question that idea), the tides are certainly shifting and it no longer makes a good argument.
Now, briefly, my take on the issues presented:
Abortion – This is not a wasted effort in a larger sense, but most Christians are arguing it from the wrong perspective, which is a wasted effort. They argue it from a Biblical perspective, whereas I use logic and the four points above to come to my conclusion: Since it is hard, if not impossible, to say at which moment a baby “gains” life after conception, and since I believe by (4) that murder is widely held as an evil, I choose to be anti-abortion so as to not assume that I know how to pinpoint when life begins when I have no more basis than the formation of a unique DNA signature.
Gay Marriage – I cannot find a logical argument against homosexuality or gay marriage, I don’t think it harms my fellow man, it will not harm me individually, we CAN make a change regarding both rights and marriage, and the tide is turning in the world as far as universal beliefs about this subject. Thus, I can’t be opposed.
Healthcare – I certainly think that an effort can and should be made in terms of cleaning this up. For all the progress we’ve made, we’re severly lacking in our ability to make good healthcare a reality.
Poverty – By (1), there’s certainly merit. But by (2), it won’t affect me much, personally, and, as stated above, by (3), I don’t think we have a hope in hell of making a permanent, meaningful change in the way the system inherently works.
Environment – Certainly falls underneath both (1) and (2) and I believe we are getting closer every day to really being able to do something about (3). (4) is the big problem; not everyone ascribes by the idea that the environment is getting worse and not everyone believes that it is a priority over items like making money, staying healthy, and being fed. Much of what we battle with the environment is the other issues getting in the way. If it is a matter between me staying home and starving or driving to work in a shitty old pickup to be able to feed my family, I’m sure as hell going to be spewing exhaust everywhere.
Education – Big one, and certainly one we CAN improve upon. Falls underneath all categories and we should be pushing forward on it.
(1 comments) said:
