This will be the last conversation with Peter Labarbera that I will post. His blog has become quite sordid and he would rather give graphic descriptions of sex to shock and disgust than actually engage in a conversation on the role of government. He claims to be a “leading Christian voice for morality in America.” If that is the case, I worry about Christianity in America.
The first tipping point for me was this commentary about Dan Savage that Jeremy Hooper pointed out. In it he has to go back to something written in 2004 to find something to embarrass a gay person. I can only imagine how long he searched to unearth this or what gross search terms he used to find it. He breathlessly describes sex stuff. It’s disturbing. I’m pretty sure I disagree with Dan Savage on a lot of things. But I disagree with him in a mature, civil manner. Labarbera’s commentary weirds me out.
The second tipping point came with this brief email exchange. In it LaBarbera echoes the sentiments of Dobson, Wildmon, Perkins, and other colleagues. While the specific topic of disagreement is legal recognition for same-sex unions, the macro issue is a disagreement about the role of government. We fundamentally disagree on the extent to which the government should dictate morals. The conversation is as follows:
GABE: Do you believe that all Americans have an ontological liberty to order their lives as each sees fit even if their choices do not conform to your religion?
Yes or no? Feel free to elaborate.
PETER: Nice try, Gabriel. Wrong question. Answer is no, of course. So let me ask you this:
Do you believe that all Americans have an ontological liberty to order their lives as each sees fit even if their choices do not conform to approval of sexual preference?
GABE: Absolutely. Unequivocally.
I no more want the government to coerce acceptance than I do condemnation. I believe the role of the government in a free country is to protect the freedom to come to contradictory conclusions about morality rather than dictate to us the “correct” view of morality. I understand that means others will be free to disagree with me on a variety of important issues. But I would prefer freedom of conscience over the government favoring a particular faith practice even if I identify with the favored faith.
You advocate people be arrested, fired from their jobs, denied insurance and housing, and excluded from civil institutions because they do not conform to your religious teachings; i.e. self-identifying as gay. I have no desire to change any aspect of your personal faith. I oppose empowering the government to dictate personal morality regardless of the moral position.
Comments