One example of how this is moving forward is the decision in 2006 by the Southern Baptist Convention to condemn the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. It's not just that they would prefer of Southern Baptists avoid or exclude alcohol from their lives — they would like to see this instituted across all of society.
When the back-and-forth on alcohol finally ended, the messengers passed with more than a four-fifths majority a resolution not only opposing the manufacture and consumption of alcohol but urging the exclusion of Southern Baptists who drink from election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities. Like other resolutions, it is not binding on SBC churches and entities.
The resolution’s supporters contended the action was needed because some Christians believe they may drink based on a wrong interpretation of the believer’s “freedom in Christ.” They said abstaining from alcohol preserves a Christian’s purity and testimony, while drinking can be a “stumbling block” for others and has destructive results.
Opponents argued that the resolution promoted a position based on Southern Baptist tradition instead of Scripture, which describes the use of wine in the Old and New Testaments. ...
In defense of the resolution, committee member Dwayne Mercer, pastor of First Baptist Church in Oviedo, Fla., said while he appreciates “the fact that people become alcoholics because they drink too much alcohol, my parents always taught me, ‘If you don’t take the first drink, you don’t have to worry about taking the last.’”
Source: Baptist Press
Tim Ellsworth has the complete text of the Southern Baptist Resolution against alcohol:
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and
WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and
WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ”; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
The provision opposing the election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities of anyone who drinks alcohol was added as an amendment. Both this amendment and the general condemnation of alcohol consumption take a very strong stand against Baptists' traditional preference for allowing individuals to make their own decisions about what is and is not morally permitted. This authoritarian stance towards members is reflected in the SBC's authoritarian vision for all of society: just as Southern Baptists shouldn't be free to make their own moral decisions, so should Americans generally not be free to do so either. This is why developments in the SBC are relevant to the rest of us: their attitudes towards members are commonly reflected in their attitudes towards the rest of society.
The Southern Baptist Convention is not the only organization which is pushing Prohibitionism. MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, has been transformed from an advocacy group to inform people about the dangers of drunk driving to an activist group pushing for the elimination of alcohol in society. Even Candy Lightner, the founder and first President of MADD, deplores this change and has been quoted as saying: “it has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned. I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”
Hey Austin,
Love the blog, but I was wondering if you could respond to Stan Fish’s arugment for the NYT, and also marilyn robinson’s article on Dawkins.
Fish is here
http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheism-and-evidence.html
Robinson’s article is here
http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/
Back in the mid-1980s, I was living in Orlando and was just about 18. The Federal Government was threatening to withhold highway funding if the state of Florida did not raise the drinking age to 21 (from 18). Even though I would have been grandfathered in–my right to drink wouldn’t have been affected–I submitted a letter to the Orlando Sentinel condemning the idea and explaining that stopping legal adults, within a particular age group, from engaging in a behavior that was absolutely the right of every other legal adult, was no less than age discrimination.
It’s very similar to the proposed legislation for retesting seniors to renew their driving privileges. I can’t imagine how frustrated an elderly good driver must feel every time he hears this nonsense and sees some young cowboy blow by him, weaving in and out down the highway. Retest everybody or test nobody! or retest people who get moving violations that year; but it’s simply not legal to test a particular age group, when we’re all adults.
Meanwhile, back in Orlando, MADD was submitting “statistics” to help promote the age discrimination against drinking. They were putting out the stat that drivers 18-21 were responsible for most of the drinking related accidents. WRONG! The 18-21 crowd was high with regard to the overall adult population OF LEGAL DRINKING AGE–but the highest rate of such accidents actually was found among the UNDER 18 group–those who legally weren’t even allowed to drink.
My theory as a high school student with a knowledge of underage drinking was that people are more prone to have accidents when (a) they lack experience BOTH drinking and driving; and (b) they’re driving around from party to party drinking–or parking and drinking in abandoned lots–because they can’t sit in an establishment and drink like everyone else.
I visited Germany around that time. People were allowed to drink there at 16, but not allowed to drive until 18. I was told from the locals that drunk driving accidents (accidents of any sort, actually) were very rare. And in fact, the one accident I witnessed–I was there a full month–resulted in a busted tail light. And it, literally, stopped traffic, because people wanted to see the “wreck.” I was told that penalties were severe and you could lose your license for a single offense.
I understand that a lot of bad things happen when people drink. But I also understand that drinking has been part of human culture since before recorded history. Drinking, by itself, is not inherently harmful to anyone (except, arguably, the person doing the drinking). I don’t ever support legislation that impedes a person’s right to do what they want if they don’t hurt others.
Now, if you choose to impair yourself and then act in such a way to harm others–Legislate away!
We are already in a Prohibition…that against marijuana.
It’s mainly a jobs program and morality play for the US govt.
One would have thought the evils of prohibition don’t need repeating. What a boost it would give to criminal gangs. I agree with the Baptists on the damage done by alcohol. If they don’t want to drink that is their choice. But people in the rest of society do want to. Some people will want to exercise their right to do things others don’t like but that is democracy.
“…the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages;…”
They should also ban books which portray manufacturing, distributing, and consuming alcoholic beverages in a positive light.
“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do [it]. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare [it]. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”
John 2:1-11 (KJV)
Oops.