Tolerance and Teaching Homosexuality in Government Schools

Tolerance and Teaching Homosexuality in the Government Schools

Christopher Neiswonger speaks to a group of concerned Christian parents in San Francisco, Alameda, California on the traditional Christian reasoning for the rejection of Homosexuality; why Christians will not subject their children to indoctrination; how the laws have changed from protecting the rights of religious people to specifically excluding, or even suppressing, the rights of religious people; the rationality of the Gay Activist arguments; and how Christians have lost the war of words without losing the battle for ideas.

How might Christians thoughtfully respond to the moral and legal arguments being made in the public square?  The State has taken the position (practically if not patently) not that religious positions are untenable or unreasonable but that they are simply illegal, and not that atheistic arguments are similarly situated or even superior but that they are by default the only positions that are legally acceptable in regard to any function of the State, including, or especially, education.

Thus, due to strange and confusing re-interpretations of the legal protections guaranteed to all Americans under the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech) the only people that are not allowed to publicly speak in public institutions are those who have been guaranteed freedom from any law restricting such a freedom.  Those who have no guarantee of such a freedom are the only ones with the freedom to speak.  And the institutions restricted from restricting have themselves have become the regulators of religion, religious people, and religious sentiment.

Christians seem to be losing most of their cultural ground without putting up much in the way of resistance because they don’t remember the traditional arguments that have had a great deal of reasonable and persuasive force.  With that, they find themselves ineffectual in responding to moral arguments against their positions when that has traditionally been the strongest ground for Christian ethics and morality as applied in the civil realm.

Of course, many Christians have adopted more contemporary interpretations of Christians ethics that create a compartmentalized application of ethics that separates personal behavior from what they think might be appropriate for public life, but that kind of thought has very little historical Christian support, and thus is easily categorized as less than Christian in its orientation.


{loadposition content9}


Leave a reply