June 15
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost warning parents not to let their children be educated by TV. One of the reasons for his warning is that Hollywood will corrupt our children’s minds by having us accept homosexuality as normal rather than as the mental illness Clark says it is. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Cited article: https://www.agradio.org/why-you-should-not-let-hollywood-catechize-your-children.html
The above post and the article from which it quotes goes well beyond the Scriptural description of homosexuality as being sinful and against as we are created to be (Romans 1). And there are two interesting observations to bring up here. First, homosexuality should not surprise in the unbelieving world. That was part of Paul's point in Romans 1 and we should note that what was normal and abnormal before the fall have, in some cases, switched places. Second, there are heterosexual sins that are considered to be worse than homosexuality. Whereas Romans 1 depicts a scene where homosexuality should not surprise us in the unbelieving world, having sex with one's step-mom (I Cor 5) should surprise us according to Paul.
With pride, Clark claims, and quite falsely so, that there is no unambiguous science that would challenge the pre-1793 DSM categorization that homosexuality is a mental illness--this is where Clark goes beyond the Scriptures and gives ground for the hatred and following marginalization of homosexuals. We should note that Clark doesn't cite any scientific study that supports the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Clark seems unaware of how some Native American tribes saw 3 to 4 different genders among their people and they didn't marginalize them as Clark seems to desire for us to do. Neither does Clark even mention the fact that homosexuality has having played a beneficial role in approximately 1,500 species (see https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx ).
While pointing to the changes in the 1973 DSM categories, even there he make serious mistakes. First, DSM did not completely eradicate homosexuality from DSM until 1987. Second, Clark is not honest is acknowledging that previous DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental illness could have easily been due more to Christianity's influence on society and the scientific community rather than scientific study (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder and https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html ). And while Clark states that the change in the 1973 DSM classifications were due to political pressure by the gay community, the APA put the issue up to a vote where 5,854 Psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from DSM while 3,810 voted to retain it. And despite that approaching a 2-1 ratio to remove that classification of homosexuality, the APA relied on a compromise solution by replacing homosexuality with a category for those in personal conflict over their sexual preferences. And of course, none of that includes the scientific evidence that attributes homosexuality to DNA and 'nonsocial environmental factors' (see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100616637616 ).
Of course there is scientific evidence that points more to social factors as causing homosexuality. But in either case, the issue of mental illness and homosexuality is not mentioned. In fact, more recent studies refute the connection between homosexuality and mental illness (see https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html ).
In Clark's articles, he goes way beyond the clear Scriptural mandates against homosexuality to that of inflating the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality to the extent that Christian readers of his articles can easily be encouraged to first fear homosexuals and then, out of that fear, hate homosexuals. That hatred may not come across with verbal or physical violence, but it can easily come across in believers attempting to marginalize homosexuals with or without the help of legislation.
Yes, we must clearly preach that the Scriptures speak against homosexuality. But if we go beyond what the Scriptures say on the matter, not only will we be hurting innocent people in society, including homosexuals, we will put Post Modernism Christians who rightly oppose the marginalization of homosexuals in society into a dilemma of either accepting or rejecting what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. Many Millennial Christians have begun to reject what the Scriptures say to avoid the sin of marginalizing homosexuals. And even non-Millennial Christians, like Nicholas Wolterstorff, have joined them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18
To Stanley Schwartz and his blogpost that opposes new rent regulations passed by the NY State legislature. One way in which Schwartz describes those regulations is as an attack on economic liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Reading the article leads one to believe that any regulations over those who rent property to others would stifle the ability of those owners from making improvements on their rental properties and thus these owners never make any significant profits from their properties. At least that is what one is led to believe. But I suspect that case-by-case studies on those who rent properties to others might reveal something different.
The principle laid out in the article above is that the NY legislature should not put regulations on those who rent properties to others because that infringes on their economic freedom. And thus, it logically follows that Schwartz's is arguing that the NY legislature, or in fact all legislatures, should only represent the interests of owners, not of the other stakeholders. So while the legislature represents owners only, the rest rely not on democracy but on those benevolence of those owners . So it is Democracy for owners but not for the rest of us. Something similar occurs when the idea of workplace regulations or environmental regulations passed by legislatures are portrayed as enemies of economic liberty. The message being passed is that our government is to represent only those with wealth while it leaves the rest of us to live by the benevolence of those with wealth.
It isn't that all regulations are good. But regulations in principle are valid. And thus any examination over the validity of regulations must be made on case-by-case basis only lest only the wealthy among us enjoy living in a democracy--and I think that the lest is what the founding fathers intended in a nation when only white male landowners could vote during the writing of The Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment