Muzzling the Moral View

News from Canada posted at LifeSite about the final outcome in a case where someone was punished for criticizing homosexual behavior: the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. It seems to be the official, government-sanctioned position that there is absolutely nothing wrong with sodomy and it is a crime to say otherwise.

It's hard to believe that this can happen in the U. S., but the path from toleration seems to lead to acceptance and then to endorsement and to the intolerance of opposing views. The "acceptance" stage may be growing even in "Christian" circles (e.g. Episcopal Church, NCC, and mainline--some megachurches will follow, eventually) and the more it does, the less successful will be the claim (to secular courts, I mean)  that the general "Christian view" is in opposition to sodomy. Those who lag behind on the road of sodom-nation-building will be forced to catch up or face sanctions.

Comments

[GL]

Your analysis is right on. I am currently working on a law review article on this trajectory as it applies to reproductive rights. Here is how it has gone:

The Church for 1900 years universally teaches contraception and abortion are gravely sinful;

The state criminalizes contraception and abortion;

A few churches (beginning with the Anglican Communion) permit contraception and overtime, more and more denominations follow its lead;

A little over three decades later, the Supreme Court declares contraception to be a Constitutional right;

Meanwhile, the "progressive" churches now advocate that abortion be permitted;

A few years later the Supreme Court declares abortion to be a Constitutional right;

Now the Governor of Illinois is ordering pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions to do so or risk losing their license to practice their profession.

Note the order. The state follows the Church, not the other way around. When Christians get serious about observing the moral law, we can, over time, change the secular law. When we, as a group, compromise the moral law, the state follows and, eventually, the faithful remanent face persecution.

[Kansas Bob]

Your statement ...

"the path from toleration seems to lead to acceptance and then to endorsement and to the intolerance of opposing views."

... accurately depicts a problem in our current day culture. Really loving the sinner and not accepting their sinful behaviors is getting harder.

[Tom Austin]

GL Writes:
"Note the order. The state follows the Church, not the other way around. When Christians get serious about observing the moral law, we can, over time, change the secular law. When we, as a group, compromise the moral law, the state follows and, eventually, the faithful remanent face persecution."
. . . . . .
What's the next step after persecution? Does the faithful remnant endure the persecution to the Glory of God, like Christians in Nero's Rome? Or, do they decide that "Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God"? I can imagine few acts more tyrannical than to deny proclamation of one's faith.