All over the nation, a number of conservative Christian lawmakers share one fundamental principle in common: they all believe that their personal religious beliefs should be the standard for evaluating public laws and policies which have authority over all citizens. There is little to distinguish such Christians from theocrats.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the Kanab City Council where people were insisting that their Christian definition of marriage must apply to all citizens, Christian or not:

Gay-rights advocates and even some residents are scolding city leaders for embracing a nonbinding proposal that:
* Labels marriage between a man and a woman as “ordained of God.”
* Sees homes as “open to a full quiver of children.”
* Envisions young women “growing into wives, homemakers and mothers and . . . young men growing into husbands, home builders and fathers.”

This defense of the “natural family” is something being pushed by the conservative Sutherland Institute, an organization pushing an agenda that is not just anti-gay, but also opposed to an equal role for women in society.

The Seattle Times reports on how conservative legislator Dan Swecker believes that gays are going to hell and, not coincidentally, that they shouldn’t have equal rights:

“I just read the Bible for what it says. It basically says that homosexuality is an abomination,” said Dan Swecker, a 58-year-old veteran lawmaker from the rural town of Rochester, Thurston County.

Why do so many bigots insist that they are “just” reading their Bible, disclaiming all responsibility for their prejudices and hate? Regardless of why he believes gays are going to hell, though, that’s irrelevant from a public policy perspective — he shouldn’t base any of his legislative decisions on such personal religious prejudices.

He argues, for example, that gay rights is a steppingstone to gay marriage. And if gay marriage becomes legal, he says, it will overtax the social safety net that supports traditional marriage by allowing gay spouses to tap into Social Security benefits, pensions and health insurance.

Would he have offered the same argument against interracial marriage?

He also says gay rights would violate individuals’ right to free association, and that business owners and landlords who oppose homosexuality should have the right to deny gays a job or housing.

The exact same argument can definitely be used against interracial marriages — and a host of other marriages, as well. The fact of the matter is, people who want to rent rooms or houses to the public can’t discriminate on the basis of such characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation.

The report makes clear, however, that his objections to equal rights and protections for gays always come down to religion; everything else is just rationalization:

After I became a Christian, I started reading the Bible, and I’m not a scholar but I did a lot of reading. It became obvious to me that homosexuality is in the area of sin,” said Swecker, who attends the Centralia Community Church of God.

Swecker said the “problem we face with homosexuality is that it’s being touted by the greater society as something other than that. The greater society is saying, ‘Hey, it’s normal. It’s what ought to be well within the range of things we tolerate in our day-to-day lives.’

“Now, the big problem that creates for the Christian is the thing we hold as the highest value is salvation. We also believe that if people aren’t able to repent their sins, then salvation isn’t available to them. One of the greatest threats is if we stop calling something sin that is a sin. Because people ultimately end up not knowing what we believe is one of the foundational truths of the Bible.”

So, Swecker opposes equal rights for gays because it sends the signal that homosexuality is OK and this makes it more difficult for Christians to spread the message that homosexuality is wrong, a necessary precondition for getting homosexuals to repent. In other words, Swecker opposes gay rights because if gays were treated as fully equal citizens of the community, it would create too much competition for him and other Christians to spread their ideas.

They want gays to be kept in the closet and in a second-class status because that makes it easier for them to spread their message — they essentially want government support for their ideas and beliefs, because those ideas and beliefs can’t stand on their own and can’t stand against any competition. Can there be any greater admission of the weakness and poverty of Christianity today?

Aside from that, consider what the implications would be if we took this principle seriously: the government shouldn’t allow the “normalization” of anything which Christians consider a sin because that makes it more difficult for Christians to preach against it. Thus, the government would have to deny equal rights and protections to atheists, Muslims, communists... why, everyone except for conservative evangelical Christians. Only these Christians would have real rights and protections.

Is it merely a coincidence that this is the agenda of Christian Reconstructionists, Christians who openly advocate and seek the replacement of American democracy with a vicious, oppressive theocracy?

 

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Religious Right News
• Christian Privilege
• Christian Supremacy
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry