Saints and Sinners Have a Lot in Common
If viable under any perspective, the now famous Texas Senate Bill 8 has a missing provision
Of course, you have every right to be righteous. The problem is, what you consider to be righteous behavior, someone else might consider as sin — the very behaviors and practices and beliefs you so cherish. Thus we can see that your right to be righteous in your mind also allows another to sin — at least as you would define it. This is subject to the old argument that it is OK to swing your arm until that action menaces or harms another. Updated, that would mean that indeed, you do not have the right to breathe viruses onto another if you can avoid it.
It could be that those who criticize your religiosity simply don’t get it; they may not even be sincere. That doesn’t mean they can’t make the case against your behavior and how it may be harmful to the public at large. That doesn’t mean that they can’t press their case, whatever their motivation. They may enjoy thus watching you squirm, especially when they catch you doing to others what you definitely don’t want them doing to you — shaming you, controlling your sincere religious impulses. Even worse — could they use legal and other means to constrain you from doing what you are doing?
It is amazing to see the most ardent religious libertarians who demand untrammeled freedoms for themselves — even trivial ones — simultaneously jump on the right to life bandwagon. Recent legislation in Texas demonstrates this in the extreme. It is literally the same people who demand a laundry list of freedoms that want to deny one very important one to women.
Lets assume the right to life people are sincere. Wouldn’t it also be warranted for them to be fair? As it takes two to tango, it takes two to get pregnant. At times, conception may not have even been consensual. In any event, all parties should be brought to account, do you not agree? If all pregnancies are to be enforced to term from very early stages regardless of conditions and preferences, wouldn’t it be appropriate to require DNA testing or other means of identification to find the fathers where they do not present themselves to bring them into account for the situation? They won’t likely be too difficult to find if a good “Texas Ranger” attempt were to be made. Perhaps the Texas legislature could put a bounty on their heads.
As an aside, where are all of those gallant Texan biological fathers now that the young Texas mothers are to be held to account? Shouldn’t they be rising to the defense of the women and children that they kind of love? Not to put too fine a point on it, where are the mothers of those young boys and possibly not-so-young men in all of this?
Under such conditions, biological fathers could, for example, be constrained in a way that bonds them to financial support of the children in question, at least to their age of majority. That would help to ensure a desirable, fulfilling kind of life for the child they participated in bringing to life. Where are the men? The Texas legislation looks incomplete in that light.
We could carry out such kinds of policies. The science and the practice are well-established. On the other hand, the whole “Texas Rangers” aspect to this points to a dystopian horror show that no one would rationally desire.
The point is that unborn children are not viable on their own. The decision to stop the growth process via abortion is obviously complicated and fraught with peril and penalty, particularly for the women in question. This is true regardless of the legality of it all. I do not understand it. I do not condone it. Many people do not.
The point is, whose decision ought that to be? What are the implications to the rest of us of freedom of choice is not condoned in such cases? Those of us that are Christians are fortunate, as the path is really very clear. The admonition exists that while the Lord forgives whom he would forgive, we are to forgive all people, who are free to make their own choices, even the choices you do not like.
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Mathew 6:14 King James Bible
Similarly, Christ provided an example in the woman found in what he and others clearly identified as sin. He asked the men in the party who of them was without sin among her accusers, all of whom then left the scene, followed by his lack of condemnation of her.
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” John 8 King James Bible
As an aside, I note that it is curious, the one-sidedness of it all. If the woman was caught in such an act, where is the other actor? Was that person allowed to slither away, or was there another proceeding in the next room (or, more logically, on the next street corner)? Such an omission in the Bible itself might lend to understanding of the Texas legislature, how they could be responsible for a similar oversight.
There are those who would say that ‘sin’ is too harsh a term in such cases. Clearly, we can see a biological infraction, because an individual life is on the line where it isn’t wanted. Could it simply be recklessness?
We have societies for such questions, including both religions and anything-but-religions. Among adherents of a faith — voluntary ones — standards of behavior and membership can be enforced, subject to generalized understanding of human rights and enforceable legal limits. As to Christianity, the universal nature of Christ’s message with respect to sins is that adherents need to leave judgment up to him. Insistence in constraining behavior and imposing civil and legal penalties by Christians in this case constitutes a lack of faith in him, that he will carry out his role with respect to mercy and justice.
The melting pot idea does not work here. We have the choice of societies, of belief systems and related associations. These can provide conceptions of heaven and hell, of reward and punishment, and of sharing and community. These may or may not involve ethnicity or family membership. There does need to be a general sense of magnanimity. From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as an example, there are two generalized sources of information on this. The first guidelines are in Articles of Faith, eleven and twelve:
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
This implies that the right to not worship is similarly reserved.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
This is all very high-minded stuff, important. It is supplemented by Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants in LDS scripture, which provides useful guidance in this:
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
I read ‘men’ in this case in the most generalized and magnanimous of meanings. Sorry about possible confusion, which we all need to battle with.
If you are going to ‘go there’ with respect to abortion and murder, be prepared to bring the men into the situation — even if they are still boys. If you want to make that case, it needs to be fair and just. At best, we are talking about ‘shotgun weddings’, which weren’t all that successful in Texas or elsewhere when they were the norm. Ultimately, such pairings and the like do not serve with respect to child-rearing. Life is difficult enough when all parties are willingly involved. This comes back to that ‘live and let live’ dictum, which can benefit us all.